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] Same container...


I guess I find the idea of "abstracted structure" to be an oxymoron.  Structure in the absence of schema is meaningless.  Just do x-query.
 
Ralph


From: Kerry Blinco [mailto:kblinco@powerup.com.au]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 8:56 AM
To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [search-ws] Same container...

Hi Ray

I've summarised in really really plain english the rather complex discussions I've been having with  Nigel Ward and Nick Nicholas here  about the container /  element question.  (very plain english to make sure I have understood what they have been trying to explain to me in rather more complex language ...) 

1)   If you want to do complex searches and you know the schema don't reinvent xquery  just do xquery

2)   The benefit of CQL is that it is an abstraction and allows you to construct a query that doesn't just search on one schema.  You need an abstraction for structure.  (container, element whatever..)    This isn't the same as  using xquery as it allows you to search across metadata schema and regardless of the  internal storage structure (isn't this one reasons cql is powerful and useful?)   eg so you can say find  me  this with author (x)  and a date  (y)  in the same container whether the data is found in  a DC record or the same contribute container of a LOM record.   

3)   Although in theory this abstraction could be nested deeply,   we don't have a real use case for more than 1 parent container.  In order to make this work though the context sets and the indexes that support them  have to be carefully defined.  The concept behind constructing these context set abstractions are often difficult to explain to the community as they have the appearance of  "flattening"  the structure or precombining terms whereas what they are doing is creating indexes for abstract concepts...   

4)  We find that the naming of the naming of indexes in context sets adds to the confusion  ...  Its often hard to convince someone that  DC.Title is really semantically equivalent to  X.Title  (where X is my favorite schema...)   whereas they might be convinced that Title in their favorite schema is equivalent to some more independently labeled title..     Yet we REALLY want to encourage re-use to enable cross searching etc..


Thanks 
Kerry







Kerry Blinco
e-Framework and Standards Manager, Link Affiliates, University of Southern Queensland; and
Technical Standards Adviser to the Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).  Australia.
Email:     kblinco@powerup.com.au
Phone:   +61 7 3871 2699              
Ph (Mobile) :    +61 419 787 992

The information contained in this e-mail message and any files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege.  
If you think you may not be the intended recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, 
please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the intended 
recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or disclose its contents to any other party.

This email represents the views of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly states otherwise.







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