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

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

The combination using the "anything does" approach is, I think, much easier. A
field called "Foo" getting searched by a term "LastWeek" looks no different
than a field called "Author" getting searched by a term "LeVan". The server
needs to know what to do.. and what the server does is what the server thinks
is best since its the server that provided in these cases the terms "LastWeek"
for the "Foo" field and "LeVan" for the "Author" field in scan and facet. It
makes life very easy...

Now Raph will say.. and what about a term that's a query: "Cat or Dog".  But..
Its NOT a query. Its not the expression ("Cat" || "Dog") its "Cat or dog".
Since the server provided it its no different than if the server provided
"LeVan,Raph", "Alfred E. Neuman" or "To be or not to be". What the server does
with "Cat or Dog" is up to the server. It provided it and it will handle it
accordingly (from the perspective of the server).

Without this approach I think things get very difficult.

And we are liberated from any restrictions to keep things to ranges, durations
and intervals. 

Ralph feels that this fails to "teach[es] the developer something about your
server's capabilities."
I did not know that this was a priority.. or relevant.. even replacing the
word "developer" for "smart clients".. 
I don't think showing a developer (of what??) that terms such as "LastWeek" or
"Mondays since 1927" work won't teach him something.. :-)



On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:05:13 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote
> 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
> 
> --
> This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
> OASIS Search Web Services TC.
> 
> In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
> to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
> before posting.
> 
> Subscribe: search-ws-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> Unsubscribe: search-ws-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> List help: search-ws-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/
> Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> Committee: http://www.oasis-
> open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=search-ws Join OASIS: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/join/


--

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