- From: Jochen Doerre <DOERRE@de.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:44:55 +0200
- To: andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Dear Andrew,
your observations are correct and exhibit indeed a systematic error in the
distance semantics functions. The XQuery Full-Text task force is currently
working on a proposal that fixes this.
Yours sincerely / Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Jochen Dörre
__________________________________________
IBM Germany Böblingen Laboratory
DB2 Information Management Software
Phone: +49-7031-16-2992, Fax: -4891, Email: doerre@de.ibm.com
> Dear editors,
>
> When I have a node: <Node>word1 word2 word3</Node>
>
> I apply the query[1]:
> /Node ftcontains ("word1" && "word2" && "word3") with distance exactly 0
> words
> I will get the AllMatches[1] as:
> --- AllMatches
> --- Match
> --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
> --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
> --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
> The final result is True.
>
> I apply the query[2]:
> /Node ftcontains ("word1" && "word2" && ! "word3") with distance exactly
> 0 words
> I seem to get the AllMatches[2] as:
> --- AllMatches
> --- Match
> --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
> --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
> The final result is also True.
>
> The reason for AllMatches[2] is that the StringExclude (pos = 3) which
> is generated by ! "word3" has been dropped, according to semantics of
> ApplyFTWordDistanceExactly, because SE-3 does not have a word distance 0
> with both SI-1 and SI-2.
>
> Are my two results correct? If they are correct, would this be
> inconsistent? Or what is the intuition when "word3" is a don't-care?
> Can I compare SE-3 to any one of SI-1 and SI-2, not to both of them?
>
> Thanks,
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 11:37:40 UTC