Re: [search-ws] Another Kind of Facet?

[Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au>]

Kneejerk reaction: the data model of SRU certainly only had a single  
data source, and differences between component data sources were not  
scoped. Rather than build in a notion of constituent data sources as a  
primitive in the source spec, and messing it up, I would be far more  
comfortable with "data source" being just another facet specified by  
the query server, as  a best practice.

I don't see how SRU URLs of databases belongs to facet queries: this  
is metadata about facets, but the query response should be  
presupposing the existence of facets, not explaining them. That's the  
business of an Explain function, really.

On 10/03/2009, at 06:42, LeVan,Ralph wrote:

> I have failed in my first application of facets.  I understand that  
> what I’m trying to do is outside of what we designed for, but I’m  
> looking for opinions as to whether we need to extend the current  
> facet design to accommodate my problem.
>
> I have an SRW database that does a federated search across a number  
> of other SRW databases and returns a single response.  But, I would  
> like to return the counts and SRU URLs for the component databases.   
> There is no way to pass such information through the current facet  
> interface.
>
> Opinions are welcome!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ralph

--
  Dr Nick Nicholas: Link Affiliates    opoudjis@optushome.com.au
http://www.opoudjis.net                          skype:opoudjis
   "Must I, then, be the only one to be beheaded now?" "Why, did you  
want
everybody to be beheaded for your consolation?" Epictetus, Discourses  
1.1.