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

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

> But, in this case the facet is not an additional component added to the
> query, as our current facets model would imply.  You see that in the
> facet xml itself, where the assumption is that terms from an index added
> to the current query define the facet.  My facets don't match that
> model.  I can't provide a value to go in that <index> element, much less
> the rest of the values in the <facet> element.

That part I understood (I think).  My suggestion was that these different 
databases are accessed via different base URLs, so if you supply a base URL 
for each, along with facet information specific to that database, then they 
can construct the query.  I'm not sure what I'm missing.

> I'm also reconsidering the existing facets.  For thin clients, adding
> something to the query is not trivial.  I think I'd like to add a <link>
> element that contains the complete URL necessary to access the facet.
> This would be in addition to the <index>, <relation> and <terms>
> elements.  They are very valuable for smart clients and should be sent
> if available.
>
> Ray, at one time you had names for the facets.  Those became unnecessary
> when we focused facets on indexes.  But now that we've opened the
> possibility that they might be something more, the need for an optional
> <name> element comes back.  .

Your suggestion to supply a human-friendly ("non-interoperable") name and 
also supply the query which would access the facet associated with that name 
is exactly what I proposed originally and it did not go over well in the SRU 
discussion list.   Maybe you'd like to revive that line of discussion on the 
SRU list?

--Ray