RE: [search-ws] Multiple Query Types

["LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>]

I don't believe you understand what an Explain record is.  The Explain
record is the equivalent of an OpenSearch document description.  So,
when you say:
> > 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.

You have either said that I was wrong and that you should do what I said
or you somehow think that OpenSearch document descriptions are superior
to Explain records and should be used instead.  The number of
deficiencies in OpenSearch document descriptions are numerous and
nothing that we can correct.  So, wherever you have said "use OpenSearch
document descriptions", I will assume you meant "use Explain".

Ralph

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 4:55 PM
To: LeVan,Ralph
Cc: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
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