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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws message

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


Subject: Re: [search-ws] Multiple Query Types



IMHO, We should really be looking at OpenSearch and OpenSearch 
description documents for describing the queries that are supported by a 
server and what parameters the query supports. This implies to me that 
we not do the equivalent functionality elsewhere (e.g. Explain Record).


LeVan,Ralph wrote:
>
> I’d like to bring up the topic of multiple query types again.
>
> I think we have eliminated the use of a query-type parameter as a 
> solution. This would have used the query parameter to carry queries of 
> all types and the query-type parameter would have specified how the 
> query was to be interpreted. Explain records would have listed the 
> types of queries supported by the server. The objection to this 
> parameter is that it adds another parameter to the query (and the 
> documentation).
>
> A simpler solution is to use the name of the query parameter itself to 
> indicate the type of query. For instance, our current query parameter 
> might be renamed CQLQuery and a new query parameter of LuceneQuery 
> might be specified to support Lucene queries.
>
> One way to do this would be to have the standard specify the parameter 
> to be used for every type of query we can think of.
>

I think above is inappropriate and unworkable.

> The Explain record for the database would again list the supported 
> query types. This simplifies interoperability, but leaves the 
> standards body with the perpetual task of adding new search types.
>

+1

> My preference is that the standards body not specify the name of the 
> query parameters.
>

+1

> Instead, the Explain record, which already lists the supported query 
> types, also specify the name of the associated query parameter.
>

-1. We should use the OpenSearch description document for describing 
queries and their params.

> This allows for much easier local extensibility.
>
> The objection to this scheme is that trivial interoperability goes 
> away: SRU URLs cannot be constructed without reference to the Explain 
> record.
>
> So, here’s my compromise position: do it my way. Well, that and have 
> the standards body create a profile where we specify the names of the 
> parameters for query types that we think might be useful/common.
>

I am not sure what "do it my way" above refers to - so I can't comment.

> Feedback would be appreciated!
>
> Ralph
>


-- 
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi

Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com





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