[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] Scan proposal
I’m strongly in favor of keeping all the features as they
are, as they are all being used by me. Yes, keep scanClause. The relation is important, just as
it is for searching. A search for title=”dog” and title exact
“dog” retrieve completely different things and a scan for those
clauses retrieve different terms. The first would retrieve a list of
single words and the second would retrieve complete titles. We have an agreement for how to scan from the beginning of the
index: provide an empty scanClause. Scan title=”” will get
you the beginning of the title words index. No changes are necessary or desirable. Thanks! Ralph From: Ray Denenberg,
Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] I'm
working a bit on the Scan document. I don't think we have ever
had a serious discussion about scan within this committee and I would like to
raise the following issue (that comes up from time to time on the SRU list, but
I don't think has been discussed here): Do
we really need to retain the "scanClause"? Could we
instead define separate parameters for index and start term? The
scanClause was defined as such in the early scan version in order to re-use the
seach clause definition from CQL (and actually the history goes back further
than that - there was originally a Z39.50/asn.1 analogy that got carried over
to SRU) and I'm not even sure that this "re-use" ever even made
sense. But in any case, don't we want to decouple Scan from CQL? Or do
we? Another
reason: the Scan clause includes a relation, which I think is completely
superfluous. Nobody has ever explained, without much pain, how any relation
other than 'equal' makes sense in a scan clause. A
third reason: we had talked about (ok, I suppose at sometime we did discuss
Scan, then) the start term being optional, so if omitted would default to the
first term in the index - say that someone wants to scan from the start of the
index but doesn't know what the first term in the index is, it is difficult to
formulate the request when the start term is mandatory. Could
we at least define both a Scan 1.2 and Scan 2.0, and make this change in 2.0? Opinions
please! --Ray |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]