W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2003

Re: FTS comments

From: Kai Gro▀johann <kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 22:04:51 +0100
To: "Pat Case" <PCASE@crs.loc.gov>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84r88wiih8.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de>

"Pat Case" <PCASE@crs.loc.gov> writes:

> From where I sit, the first thing we need is full-text querying in
> XQuery encompassing functionalities which currently exist.
> As a librarian and expert searcher, I find even stemming algorithms
> fail me often enough that I want to retain the crude, but totally
> controllable predictable wildcards. I build better queries with
> wildcards then I can with stemming, because stemming doesn't allow me to
> decide which related words to include on a word by word basis. Just
> because it is linguistically related doesn't mean it returns the results
> I want. Stemming is black box which works against expert searchers as
> often as it work for them. We feel the same about scoring and ranking.
> Different users benefit from different tools. I wouldn't expect a
> novice user to use wildcards or to be so annoyed  with scoring and
> ranking.

Thank you for the education.  I'm not an expert searcher, it never
occurred to me that stemming could be a problem in this way.

> Which doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome the likes of a linguistic parser.
>  It would be a boon to all end users. Are you recommending we add a use
> case which calls an implementation-defined linguistic parser (as we did
> for stemming) or are you recommending more than that?

It is very close.  I am suggesting to add a use case which does
"linguistic phrase search" and leave it to the implementation whether
they use a linguistic parser or map it to proximity search or they ask
the Oracle of Delphi.

A preposition is not a good thing to end a sentence with.
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 16:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:11 UTC