FW: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses

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

(I had the wrong account last time so re-posting.)

-----Original Message-----
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:04 PM
To: ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses

The utility of displayTerm (vs. actualTerm) was illustrated  many years ago
during early implementation of Z39.50 browse/scan.  You'd have to look up
that discussion in the archive, but basically, an implementation had an
index where terms where not very user friendly but were much more efficient
for searching than their corresponding displayTerms. I don't recall who the
implementer was, but there was a real implementation.

Of course this was for scan (or "browse" as we called it in Z39.50), not for
facets.

My position on this is that scan and facets should be aligned in this
matter. That is, they should both have displayTerm or neither should. That
means the OASIS committee should consider depricating displayTerm from Scan.
I don't say it SHOULD DEPRICATE it, it should consult with Z39.50 and SRU
implementors to see if displayTerm is still necessary/useful. That was the
purpose of Ralph's posting to the SRU list. If it seems that displayTerm
should remain in scan then I think it should be added to the facet response.
If it seems nobody cares whether it is retained or not then it should be
dropped from scan 2.0 (and not added to the facet response).

--Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors
[mailto:ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of LeVan,Ralph
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:07 PM
To: ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses

Pretty much all the conversation on that list has been about changes to the
facet response and the only controversial change is my desire to add a
displayTerm.

Here's a pointer to the achive for this month:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/search-ws-comment/201010/threads.ht
ml

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors 
> [mailto:ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 1:50 PM
> To: ZNG@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV
> Subject: Re: <displayTerm> as a subelement of <term> in Scan responses
> 
> Can you link to the thread in the archives of the list, or is it (like 
> most of our lists, for no good reason) private?
> 
> I am curious what the arguments against it are. It seems like a good 
> idea to me?
> 
> But I do not use Scan at all.
> 
> I do not use facetting through SRU at all, but if/when I do, I believe 
> I'd use displayTerm if it was there.
> 
> LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> > There's an overlong debate going on in the search-ws-comment mail
list
> (search-ws-comment@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:search-ws-
> comment@lists.oasis-open.org>) about including a displayTerm as a 
> subelement of <term> in a facet response.  The feelings against
including
> displayTerm are so strong as to suggest that it should be deprecated
in Scan.
> >
> > I've been the one arguing for the inclusion of displayTerm for
consistency with
> Scan, but I don't use it myself in any of my implementations.  So, my
question for
> you all is: do any of you actually use the displayTerm in your
responses?  If not,
> I'll happily drop my arguments.  If so, can you provide a good use
case?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >