Re: [search-ws] RE: sru/cql sort

[Rob Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>]

I disagree, there were and are very good reasons to put them together. 

There MUST be a query, and that query identifies or describes a result
set.  Sort, as specified in CQL, is a part of that description as it
affects the ordering, in exactly the same way as relevance ranking does
for example.  

It makes it more complex to have two parameters, both of which contain
CQL, one of which is mandatory, than to retain the status quo of one
mandatory parameter that can optionally have a sort specification
included in it.

If CQL retains its ability to map prefixes, you would have to do the
mapping twice, once in each parameter.

If CQL is to be used outside of SRU, and it already IS being used
outside of SRU in Jangle for example, then it makes sense to have its
own sort specification rather than requiring every other project to
reinvent it.  If SRU 2.0 doesn't want to use it, then it can split it
off into a second parameter, but the language should retain the ability.

It also closely follows SQL, which most implementations will use
underneath anyway, and is familiar to developers.

(see also for reference:
http://zing.z3950.org/cql/sorting.html
)

I also disagree about facets not being scan, but don't feel strongly
enough about it to argue the point.

Rob

On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 11:15 -0400, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> Well, my original complaint about incorporating sort into the query
> grammar was about the additional complexity it added to the query.  But,
> our work on trying to use the URL template structure has focused my
> dissatisfaction.
> 
> The problem is that we can't describe how to do a sort separate from how
> to do a search, because we've bundled them together, for no particularly
> good reason.  The clear objective in every simplification project I've
> been on is to decompose complex problems into simpler ones.  We've done
> the reverse by bundling search and sort together.  I'd like to see that
> decision reversed.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:13 PM
> > To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: LeVan,Ralph
> > Subject: sru/cql sort
> > 
> > Just looking through some of my personal archives and it seems to me
> > that we
> > never addressed Ralph's complaint about sort.
> > 
> > Ralph, could you write up a brief proposal that we can add to the
> > "table"?
> > 
> > By Monday for the call, if possible?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > --Ray
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>