[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate formsprocessing
Order isn't an issue if the field names are unique.
It is more likely that the server will use code along the following form to create a parameter name and test for its value and existence than to parse the parameter name, so I'd argue against 0 padding:
query = "";
n = 1;
while (req.getParameter("q" + n + ".trm") != null) {
query + = " " + req.getParameter("q" + n + ".idx") +
" " + req.getParameter("q" + n + ".rel") +
" " + req.getParameter("q" + n + ".trm");
n++;
}
Matthew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
> Sent: 15 December 2010 21:45
> To: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; Matthew Dovey; Hammond,Tony;
> OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate forms
> processing
>
> If the form had the field names as "q01.idx" for large forms, then those
> servers that count of simple string sorting should be okay.
>
> That problem can be taken care of with a note for the queryType.
>
> Ralph
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:35 PM
> > To: LeVan,Ralph; 'Matthew Dovey'; Hammond,Tony; 'OASIS SWS TC'
> > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate
> forms
> > processing
> >
> > Right.
> > On second thought is q1.idx, etc. really orderable as a practical
> matter? If
> > there are more than 9 clauses it won't be sufficient to do a simple
> string
> > order. Is it reasonable to require the server to parse the parameter
> name to
> > get the integer part? Or do we need to come up with a different
> scheme?
> > Something like "q.[x].idx where it is the responsibility of the client
> to
> > ensure that [x] is lexically increasing in the order of occurrence of
> the
> > parameters."
> > --Ray
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:13 PM
> > > To: Denenberg, Ray; Matthew Dovey; Hammond,Tony; OASIS SWS TC
> > > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate
> forms
> > > processing
> > >
> > > Yes. My comment was in response to Matthew's suggestion that
> instead
> > > the parameter name simply be repeating "query".
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 12:06 PM
> > > > To: LeVan,Ralph; 'Matthew Dovey'; Hammond,Tony; 'OASIS SWS TC'
> > > > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to facilitate
> > > forms
> > > > processing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > &q1.idx=index1
> > > > &q1.rel=relation1
> > > > &q1.trm=term1
> > > > &q1.bln=boolean1
> > > > &q2.idx=index2
> > > > &q2.rel=relation2
> > > > &q2.trm=term2
> > > > &q2.bln=boolean2
> > > >
> > > > Aren't these are sufficiently orderable?
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:50 AM
> > > > > To: Matthew Dovey; Hammond,Tony; Denenberg, Ray; OASIS SWS TC
> > > > > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to
> facilitate
> > > forms
> > > > > processing
> > > > >
> > > > > Order is not guaranteed by forms encoders. Typically, it is the
> > > > > reverse of the order in the form, but not guaranteed. In the
> > > original
> > > > > Google example, order was not important. Here it is and the
> only
> > > > > guarantee of order would be by picking parameter names that are
> > > > > orderable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:m.dovey@jisc.ac.uk]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:26 AM
> > > > > > To: Hammond,Tony; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress;
> LeVan,Ralph;
> > > > > OASIS
> > > > > > SWS TC
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [search-ws] queryn: A proposal for SRU to
> facilitate
> > > > > forms
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, thinking on this a little - would a simpler solution
> be
> > > > > simply to allow
> > > > > > query to be repeatable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://server/searchRetrieve?query= title%20exact%20fish
> > > > > >
> > > > > > could be also sent as
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> http://server/searchRetrieve?query=title&query=exact&query=fish
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (the server just assembles the values for query in the order
> > > supplied
> > > > > inserting
> > > > > > whitespace).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most server-side cgi will still cope with this (some need a
> > > little
> > > > > effort, e.g. the
> > > > > > solution for php is here:
> > > > > >
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/reserved.variables.get.php#92439)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Matthew
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: 15 December 2010 15:48
> > > > > > > To: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress; Matthew Dovey;
> > > LeVan,Ralph;
> > > > > > > OASIS SWS TC
> > > > > > > Subject: 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
> > > > > > >
> **********************************************************
> > > > > > > **********************
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No virus found in this message.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > > > > Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3316 - Release
> Date:
> > > > > 12/14/10
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > >
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3317 - Release Date: 12/15/10
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]