5 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.search-ws-commentRE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal ...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress | Oct 19, 2010 11:29 am | |
| LeVan,Ralph | Oct 19, 2010 11:41 am | |
| Edward C. Zimmermann | Oct 19, 2010 12:44 pm | |
| Edo Plantinga | Oct 20, 2010 12:41 am | |
| Edward C. Zimmermann | Oct 20, 2010 4:37 am |
| Subject: | RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU 2.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress (rd...@loc.gov) | |
| Date: | Oct 19, 2010 11:29:32 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.search-ws-comment | |
Everyone, this discussion needs to CC the public comments list: sear...@lists.oasis-open.org
--Ray
From: LeVan,Ralph [mailto:lev...@oclc.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:25 PM To: Edward C. Zimmermann; Edo Plantinga Cc: Robert van de Rijt; Denenberg, Ray Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU 2.0
Sorry, I don't see the issue here. There is a long tradition of a display form separate from the value. HTML lists clearly make the distinction. In Scan, we wanted to be able to display, for instance, a Name to the user, but return an LCCN. So, the displayTerm is different from the value element. I'm proposing the same capability.
Ralph
From: Edward C. Zimmermann [mailto:ed...@nonmonotonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:56 PM To: Edo Plantinga; LeVan,Ralph Cc: Robert van de Rijt; Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress Subject: RE: [search-ws-comment] RE: Proposal to remove facet range feature from SRU 2.0
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:27:07 +0200, Edo Plantinga wrote
Hi Ralph,
I am not sure why there is a need for an extra technical field with the
content "20101001 20101007" as the same content is also present in <query> and in <requestUrl>. This seems a little redundant
It is redundant. The main case, I think, is Scan.. where its also in this paradigm also redundant.. I won't argue that it could be useful but its not needed. I'd personally rather see a <description> (or some other name for the sub-element) that could contain some verbose text not intended as a display version of the term but available as additional info in, for example, text bubbles..
Options: - Have DisplayTerm in both Facets and Scan and add also Description to both.
- Use DisplayTerm as Description.. perhaps in both facets and scan (adding DisplayTerm in Facets). - Get rid of DisplayTerm in scan and don't suggest one for Facets. No description either. None are needed (Minialistic version). - Rename DisplayTerm in Scan to Description--- or some other name that does not mislead one to think its about displaying a term--- and add a Description in facets.
Personally... I think since we've agreed to let the server do what it wants we don't and should not have a DisplayTerm since its misleading.. Facets don't need them.. Neither does Scan--- and so I think we might want to open the discussion about getting rid of them in Scan should we choose not to have them in Facet (given the analogs). I would not mind a Description sub-element but I could also live fine and dandy without one.
Ralph and me had this discussion before, so Edward, I am curious to hear
what you think!
--
Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts Office Leo (R&D): Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich, Federal Republic of Germany Telephone: Voice:= +49 (89) 385-47074 Corp.Fax:= +49 (89) 692-8150 Nomadic (SMS/MMS/Fax):= +49 (176) 100-360-55 Alt.Mobile:= +49 (179) 205-0539 http://www.nonmonotonic.net <http://www.nonmonotonic.net/> Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967