[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>
For the record: I still totally agree with Edward's take on this. Since we seem to have started to repeat our arguments, I suggest somebody (Ray?) a) makes a decision or b) proposes a procedure how to reach consensus (e.g. ask another facet expert whose opinion we will follow, do a majority vote, provide (pseudo) code examples, whatever). I personally feel the mailing list discussion is not leading anywhere anymore. I am willing to take the discussion to a procedural level, but if the discussion will continue at the content level, I regret to say I will unsuscribe from the mailing list. Regards, Edo >>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >>Van: Edward C. Zimmermann [mailto:edz@nonmonotonic.net] >>Verzonden: dinsdag 26 oktober 2010 10:09 >>Aan: LeVan,Ralph; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; >>search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org >>Onderwerp: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea >>for <actualValue> >> >>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 >> >> >>-- >>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/ >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]