OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws-comment message

[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>

Edo - I would say that the decision has been made, for the present time,
which doesn't mean it cannot be revisited during public review.  For the
public review document we are going to include displayTerm. 

I invite you to join the SRU implementors forum for additional discussion of
this issue, just as I encourage those implemeters to join this forum.  It's
hard to manage this discussion, but it really needs to include that group,
while at the same time it needs to occur here as well in order to conform to
OASIS requirements for open discussion.  Sometimes it's impossible to
reflect all discussion from one forum to the other but we do our best.  I
bring this up because there has been some discussion recently on that forum
that you may not have seen, please subscribe, see
http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/community/listserv.html, look at the
archive for the recent discussion, and feel free to post to that list, and
we should try to post all relevant discussion on this matter to both lists. 

The essence of the discussion is: displayTerm is in Scan; we want scan and
facets to be aligned in this matter; there is a valid use case for it in
scan and therefore we do not want to depricate displayTerm from scan, at
least not at this time, so we will retain it in facets for the time being.
This is all subject to comment and reconsideration during the public review


-----Original Message-----
From: Edo Plantinga [mailto:Edo.Plantinga@ictu.nl] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 4:45 AM
To: Edward C. Zimmermann; LeVan,Ralph; Denenberg, Ray;
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.



>>-----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; 
>>Onderwerp: RE: [search-ws-comment] "Last Week" is a bad idea for 
>>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 
>>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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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: 
>>> 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
>>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 
>>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: 
>>List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>>Join OASIS: http://www.oasis-open.org/join/

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]