W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11444] [FT] FTThesaurusOption "levels" default should be implementation-defined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:13:36 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PZouW-0004Tq-MB@jessica.w3.org>

Paul J. Lucas <paul@lucasmail.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #3 from Paul J. Lucas <paul@lucasmail.org> 2011-01-03 18:13:35 UTC ---
Since I didn't get a response on how, exactly, "there is enough flexibility in
the spec to accomplish what [I] want," I'm re-opening the bug.

To me, the spec as currently written is quite clear in that "the default is to
query all levels *ALL* levels in hierarchical relationships" [emphasis, mine].

Of course the spec doesn't specify what a "level" is either.  Although the spec
doesn't explicitly specify that a "level" is implementation-defined, its
silence on that point makes it de-facto implementation-defined.  I'm OK with
this, although the spec could say so explicitly.  However, I don't feel
strongly enough on that point to file a separate bug.

But whatever an implementation defines a "level" to be, it shouldn't be forced
to query *ALL* of them by default.  In addition to the likely semantically
useless results I gave an example of already ("entity" is a synonym of
"canary"), querying *ALL* levels would be more computationally expensive and
hence shouldn't be the default for that reason also.

In practice, hierarchical relationships wouldn't be longer that a dozen or so
levels anyway (but this doesn't negate either of my reasons above for not
querying all of them by default).  If a user really wants *ALL* levels, s/he
can specify an arbitrarily high range of, say, "at most 100 levels" and get the
same effect.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 18:13:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:44 UTC