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: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:12:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4A001F0B.7090600@uni-koblenz.de>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> > There are two key features here:
> >
> > + full text is an index, not a restriction (unlike regexs).
> > + scoring matters, as does limiting hits
> >
> > It might be viable to have syntax and integration into evaluation without
defining what full text results are.

I fully agree.

> > Unfortunately, scoring is useful only if order is preserved.

I don't think so. Scoring for example makes sense, if you only want to select
results above a certain threshold.

> > The needing ?text_exp to be a ground term of bound variable at the point of
evaluation is also a bit of a nuisance.
> >
> > Thus, specific syntax for full text, and not making it look like a property,
would be a step forward.
> >
> >     TEXT(?x, 'word1 word2'[, relevance][, limit])

Maybe without limit, if we allow result modifiers in subqueries.

cheers,
Simon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkoAHwsACgkQQ0Lz1fXAQeOnaACeO/l2ekvFrMuN4WgijoWBTaxQ
AsAAoMpqcEpYxvNef2Or2k2f/zXqLec7
=QRj9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 11:12:57 GMT

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