W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: More fulltext advocacy (was Re: Lee's feature proposal)

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:10:25 +0200
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200905051110.25207.Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 00:30:09 Orri Erling wrote:
> If the WG committed to standardizing full text in SPARQL to be according to
> XPATH , we would implement.  But without this WG decision, we
> would stay with what we have, which is familiar to SQL people and easy to
> process from a text search box.

What you have have worked pretty well for us! :-) 

I tend to agree that if we want full-featured fulltext search capabilities, 
then rolling our own is overkill and counter-productive, but I am concerned 
that also using something like Xpath would be too much for this WG and too 
much for many implementers. 

Thus, if people require things like multiple-language stemming and a score, 
then yes, they would need to go all the way, but a very simple matching 
function, like you have now (and which is simpler than Andy has in LARQ), is 
an awful lot better than nothing (like you say, nothing in this area is a 
terrible option). 

Thus, we may want to let people optionally have ftcontains and a mechanism to 
add a score to the result set or graph, but require only something a lot 
simpler. 

I hope we can discuss this tomorrow, but we have not that much time to decide, 
so I think a bit of mailing list traffic on this topic is useful.

Kind regards 

Kjetil Kjernsmo
-- 
Senior Knowledge Engineer
Mobile: +47 986 48 234
Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com   
Web: http://www.computas.com/

|  SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE  |

Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 
1001
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 09:10:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT