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

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

> In scan,  the term is the query. 

But not really, I mean, not always.  "20101017 20101023"  isn't much of a query, not if the intent is dates within that range. How is the client to know what relation to use (e.g. 'cql.within') or even the format of the term, allowing it to formulate a useful query?

--Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:05 PM
To: Denenberg, Ray; search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for <actualValue>

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