W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: Issue: JW7 (redirects)

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:55:53 -0700
Message-ID: <3FF8121C9B6DD111812100805F31FC0D087932F1@RED-MSG-59>
To: "'ejw@ics.uci.edu'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
The idea is that different search arbiters can provide each other with
enough information to let them know what kind of data they possess, not
necessarily the entire index of that data (which would probably be too
large). For example, the search arbiter might tell other arbiters that it
supports the "author" property. Thus when you ask your search arbiter for
all documents written by John Doe the arbiter will immediately return all
the information it has and point you to other arbiters within your request
scope which it knows support the author property. You can then execute your
query on those other arbiters. So if the request scope is my entire company
then there are a number of arbiters I may need to be talking to.

Check out
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-find-cip-arch-02.txt, it
talks about these sorts of query routing concepts.

BTW, as I said in my original letter, I'm not suggesting that we require
redirectable multi-result queries in V1. I'm just saying that the feature is
definitely useful and should be kept on the table, potentially for future
revisions. In fact an easy way to add this later on would be to return a
bunch of extra XML goop in the SEARCH response which specifies which other
search arbiters to talk to. The beauty of this is that V1 DASL clients will
just see search responses and ignore the extra group. V2 DASL clients will
know what to do with the extra goop.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> Sent: Thu, June 10, 1999 10:44 AM
> To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue: JW7 (redirects)
> > 2) Also, I don't quite get how an arbiter could *know* that 
> it has only
> > partial  knowledge.  Either it recognizes the scope (which 
> is a URI) or it
> > does not.  (I suppose you could have very smart arbiters 
> that recognize
> > that they don't index certain properties, but know of 
> another than does,
> > but that seems implausible.)
> I've been thinking about how your would configure a search engine to
> properly send you to another arbiter, and I just can't 
> envision how this
> configuration could easily be done.
> So, I'm agreeing with Jim Davis.
> - Jim
Received on Friday, 11 June 1999 23:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:41 UTC