Re: [search-ws] Scan as a query type

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

 "The result of a query is an ordered set of documents" I would generalize
that to change "documents" to "records", and simply view each term as a
record.

Cardinality? I'm dubious.  I actually think the termlist is more likely to
have cardinality than the result set.   We had major discussion of this at
the 2006 meeting (unfortunately you weren't there), about what to do with
the mandatory result count parameter when so many search engines can't
provide it.

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>;
<search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: [search-ws] Scan as a query type


I don't think so.  The result of a query is an ordered set of documents
with cardinality.  The result of a scan is an ordered set of terms
without cardinality.

Ralph


-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:03 PM
To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [search-ws] Scan as a query type

In light of the multiple query type consideration, I want to kick this
idea
around before we get into the Scan discussion on the SRU list.

Is it reasonable to consider modelling scan as a query type?

--Ray


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php