- 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