Re: [search-ws] facetOffset

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

facetStart is good.

----- Original Message -----

From: LeVan,Ralph

To: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress ; search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:41 AM

Subject: RE: [search-ws] facetOffset

Well, it’s not a count.  How about facetStart?

 

I’m not offended by the original facetOffset.

 

Ralph

 

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:33 PM
To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [search-ws] facetOffset

 

It occurs to me that we made it zero-based because we use the word "offset" which has zero-base connotation.  Could we change the parameter name to facetStartCount?

----- Original Message -----

From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress

To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 PM

Subject: [search-ws] facetOffset

 

FacetOffset in the current SRU draft is zero-based; a value of zero means start with the first count.

 

Is there a reason (that anyone can remember) why we made it zero based - did I just do it arbitrarily and nobody noticed?

 

When we scroll through records, that's one based; startRecord is a positive integer. 

 

These two should be the same for consistency, unless someone has a requirement that facetOffset be zero based.

 

--Ray