RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate forms processing

["Hammond, Tony" <t.hammond@nature.com>]

Title: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate forms processing

Hi:

I would have been more inclined to retain the "queryn" parameter. That way one could have

    searchRetrieve = query | queryn

And that becomes easy to test for the searchRetrieve operation. Do you gave a parameter named query*?

The parameter "query" has the actual data by value, whereas the parameter "queryn" is more like data by reference - the number is not dissimilar from a location - the count is used in fact to locate the parameters within the parameter space.

Whether one also needs to have the "queryType", I could live with that - if it's really required. But I can't readily live with the string "fbcql". Can't it be something more down to earth like "cql-lite" or "cql-simple" or even "cql-form", or of that ilk? Let's keep the branding "cql" up front, and use a word rather than a token. (We do have "xcql" but that is exclusively for XML. I wouldn't feel any requirement to follow the naming here.)

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
Sent: Wed 12/15/2010 3:35 PM
To: 'Matthew Dovey'; Hammond, Tony; 'LeVan,Ralph'; 'OASIS SWS TC'
Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate forms processing

Suppose instead: 

 - define a new query type, let's call it fbcql for now.
 - when queryType=fbcql, then there is no query parameter and instead, it is
a signal that these form-based parameters will occur.
 - so there is no need for the queryn parameter.

This approach does mean changing the protocol so that the query parameter is
not mandatory (it would be omitted in this special case) but I am not
terribly offended by such a change.

Is this an acceptable compromise?

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:m.dovey@jisc.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:06 AM
> To: Hammond, Tony; Denenberg, Ray; LeVan,Ralph; OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate forms
> processing
>
> > Yes, you have understood my proposal correctly. :)
> >
> > I would question though whether we really need to assign a different
> > queryType as this is a strict subset of CQL.
>
> And that's where we differ ;-)
>
> I think what we can agree on is that we have a concept of "query
> language" and "query encoding". The query language we are talking about
> in all cases is CQL. We currently have a string encoding for CQL. We
> did have an XML encoding for CQL (I can't recall if we kept it but its
> usefulness turned out to be limited). You are proposing a form-based
> encoding for CQL.
>
> However, we only have one parameter queryType. You think that queryType
> should indicate the query language but not the encoding, whereas I'm
> quite happy with queryType indicating both the query language *and* the
> encoding for that language.
>
> On the other hand, I'm not too happy about the query encoding being
> determined by the presence (or absence) of an overloaded parameter in
> the request (queryn does two things - indicates the number of clauses
> *and*by its presence indicates that the query encoding is form based).
> I would much rather the query encoding be explicitly indicated by the
> value of a parameter (and defaulted is the parameter is omitted).
>
> I think, I'm arguing that we perhaps need to replace queryType with two
> parameters: queryLanguage and queryEncoding but I'm concerned that is
> over-engineering.
>
> Matthew

********************************************************************************   
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is
not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error
please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage
mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept
liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not
expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents.
Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents
accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or
its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and 
attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan 
Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan 
Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 
Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS   
********************************************************************************