OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

search-ws message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [search-ws] Two questions: CQL - Weighting; Explain - Diagnostics


Both suggestions seem fine to me.   

As I am editing the CQL draft right now, can you formulate the weighting
more specifically.  My first thought is that it would be an index modifier,
but remember, the syntax doesn't support index modifiers.  Relation
modifier?  In the CQL context set?  And what would it's value be, an
integer? The higher, the greater weight?

--Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hammond, Tony [mailto:t.hammond@nature.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:45 AM
> To: OASIS SWS TC
> Subject: [search-ws] Two questions: CQL - Weighting; Explain -
> Diagnostics
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Here's a couple oddball questions arising from implementing an SRU
> server:
> 
>     1. CQL - Weighting. I wondered if there had ever been any
> discussion on weighting of indexes (or field "boosts" as it's called, I
> believe, in Lucene queryparser syntax). This is one of the facets of
> search operation that we are routinely managing. Previously this was
> very much in the background but we are now foregrounding more so as to
> make it easier to test client interfaces. And so, while we are
> weighting against content sections rather than indexes as such, it
> seems pertinent to at least ask the question, given that other search
> APIs (e.g. Lucene) do support this functionality.
> 
>     2. Explain - Diagnostics. One of the key functionalities of SRU
> beyond structured queries and structured result sets is the
> standardization of a diagnostics suite. And this is of real interest to
> any apps built on top of SRU. (And currently we are building just such
> a one.) At present we only have the diagnostics we support documented
> in the codebase itself, We could (and should) document this separately.
> But the most obvious place to document this would be the explain record.
> Is there any reason not to allow for diagnostic codes supported by the
> server to be added to the explain record since this is one of the
> principal features of the server?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> *********
> 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
> ***********************************************************************
> *********
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]