RE: [search-ws-comment]DisplayTerm // Forms versus Scan and Facet // was: ....

["Edward C. Zimmermann" <edz@nonmonotonic.net>]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:34:14 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote

> > And how about we change the wording for value (and the optional
> DisplayTerm)
> > in Scan?
> 
> As you will have seen by now, I've asked the SRU list for advice on
> displayTerm in Scan.  If no one speaks up for it there, then I'll 
> drop my argument and suggest that we deprecate it in Scan.

Might need to forward a summary of the discussions thus far....
 
> I'm a little nervous about redefining "value" in Scan responses.  The
> values in Scan are ordered.  If we conclude that "anything goes" 
> there, then what is the ordering?

The ordering is what we make of it. Even "alphabetical" ordering of "terms as
they are in the index"--- those at the 2006 SRU workshop in The Hague will
recall (and OCLC PICA was one of the voices alongside mine)--- is not without
its issues. There can be no "universally accepted" order except what servers
think are right--- and in a number of our bibliographic/mediagraphic projects
over the years we've had a large number of different orderings and rooms
filled with committees discussing endlessly what alphabetical ordering to use.. 

The only condition for order is that the order remains consistent. This is
needed for indexing into a list. The 102nd element of a list remains the 102nd
element of a list as long as the list is unchanged. 

As long as "ordering" is consistent from the server it does not matter if the
terms are "exactly as they are in the index" or legitimate search terms.


> 
> Ralph
> 


--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
Office Leo (R&D):
  Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
  Federal Republic of Germany
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967