RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>

["LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>]

In scan,  the term is the query. For facets, the facet term has to be combined with the previous query and that can be tricky.

Ralph 

"Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov> wrote:

" It demonstrates that you have a date index that can be used for range
searches .. "

 

Now I don't want to open up a whole nother can of worms. But doesn't this
argue for yet one more element  . a query.   If you return the term
"20101017 20101023" is the client likely to be able to formulate a valid
query without any help?  We do it for facets, return a query with each facet
term. 

 

 --Ray

  

 

From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:28 AM
To: Edo Plantinga; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>

 

The has nothing to do with client-defined range facets.  The client has the
option to specify what facets get returned and the server gets to decide
what ranges are returned to the client.  None of that has changed.

 

The issue is the value that gets returned in the server-defined range.  Ed
has advocated for the <actualValue> returned to be a magic string such as
"Last Week".  I suggest that a more useful value for developer educational
purposes would be "20101017 20101023" as it would show the developer how to
use ranges in other queries.  It demonstrates that you have a date index
that can be used for range searches and you give an example of such a range
search in your facet response.  This gets away from server "magic" and
teaches the developer something about your server's capabilities.

 

Ralph

 

From: Edo Plantinga [mailto:Edo.Plantinga@ictu.nl] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:13 AM
To: LeVan,Ralph; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>

 

We *don't* have client-defined range facets, therefore the developer cannot
figure out how to create such a query anyway. Your argument does not hold
true for server-defined facets. To put it another way: there will be no
sending of strings that have not been sent first by the *server*, and
therefore there will be no "url hacking" or "query hacking".

 


  _____  


Van: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org] 
Verzonden: maandag 25 oktober 2010 16:02
Aan: search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Onderwerp: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>

I've been giving more thought to our facets conversation and have decided
that I don't like "Last Week" as a term to be sent back to the server.  I'm
not saying it is illegal or that the standard won't support it.  I'm just
saying I think it is a bad idea.

 

The reason is that it depends on server magic.  The client, or more
importantly the developer, won't learn anything about how to construct other
range queries if we hide how it is done behind magic strings.  If, instead,
we send "20101017 20101023" as the <actualTerm>, then the developer might be
able to figure out how to create their own query for "Two Weeks Ago".

 

Of course, an <actualTerm> of "20101017 20101023" would want a <displayTerm>
of "Last Week".

 

Ralph