W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [FT]FTUnaryNot

From: Sihem Amer-Yahia <sihem@research.att.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:12:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200503211912.j2LJCQ8h10230519@chips.research.att.com>
To: andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au
Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org


Dear Andrew,

Sorry for the late reply. We have been busy with getting a new draft
of the language document ready. FYI, a new version of the draft will
be accessible soon.

We should get back Result 1.  The reason is that the input AllMatches
may have been obtained from a combination of full-text FTSelections
such as distance and ordered and that the only thing a negation (i.e.,
FTUnaryNot) does is to say that those matches in its input AllMatches
are to be excluded and it is thus not allowed to "merge" matches as
you did in Result 2.

What is the intuition behind Result 2?

Thanks,
Sihem

>Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:15:47 +1100
>From: andrewc <andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au>
>Reply-To: andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au does not designate permitted sender hosts)
>X-Original-To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/4230F143.80202@cisra.canon.com.au
>Resent-From: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <public-qt-comments@w3.org> archive/latest/5988
>X-Loop: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>Sender: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: <public-qt-comments.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on 
>	mail-brown.research.att.com
>X-Spam-Level: 
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
>	version=3.0.1
>Content-Length: 1339
>
>
>Dear editors,
>
>Regarding the semantics of FTUnaryNot.If we have an AllMatches 
>(queryString and queryPos are omitted):
>
>AllMatches
>--- Match
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>--- Match
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>--- Match
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>--- Match
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>
>If we apply the FTUnaryNot on the above AllMatches, which result shall 
>we get back (Result 1 or Result 2)?
>
>Result 1:
>AllMatches
>--- Match
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>      --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>--- Match
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>--- Match
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>--- Match
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>
>Result 2:
>AllMatches
>--- Match
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>      --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 19:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:23 UTC