Re: [FT]FTUnaryNot

Dear Sihem,

Thank you for your reply.
The question comes from when I evaluate "occurs at most 2"  and the 
keyword appears 4 times in context node.
I evaluate it as "occurs not at least 3" using negation over "occurs at 
least 3".
I realize that Result 1 is better than Result 2.

Regards,
Andrew

Sihem Amer-Yahia wrote:

>Dear Andrew,
>
>Sorry for the late reply. We have been busy with getting a new draft
>of the language document ready. FYI, a new version of the draft will
>be accessible soon.
>
>We should get back Result 1.  The reason is that the input AllMatches
>may have been obtained from a combination of full-text FTSelections
>such as distance and ordered and that the only thing a negation (i.e.,
>FTUnaryNot) does is to say that those matches in its input AllMatches
>are to be excluded and it is thus not allowed to "merge" matches as
>you did in Result 2.
>
>What is the intuition behind Result 2?
>
>Thanks,
>Sihem
>
>  
>
>>Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:15:47 +1100
>>From: andrewc <andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au>
>>Reply-To: andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au
>>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
>>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au does not designate permitted sender hosts)
>>X-Original-To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>>X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/4230F143.80202@cisra.canon.com.au
>>Resent-From: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>>X-Mailing-List: <public-qt-comments@w3.org> archive/latest/5988
>>X-Loop: public-qt-comments@w3.org
>>Sender: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
>>Resent-Sender: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
>>Precedence: list
>>List-Id: <public-qt-comments.w3.org>
>>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on 
>>	mail-brown.research.att.com
>>X-Spam-Level: 
>>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
>>	version=3.0.1
>>Content-Length: 1339
>>
>>
>>Dear editors,
>>
>>Regarding the semantics of FTUnaryNot.If we have an AllMatches 
>>(queryString and queryPos are omitted):
>>
>>AllMatches
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 3)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>>
>>If we apply the FTUnaryNot on the above AllMatches, which result shall 
>>we get back (Result 1 or Result 2)?
>>
>>Result 1:
>>AllMatches
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>>     --- StringInclude (pos = 4)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>>
>>Result 2:
>>AllMatches
>>--- Match
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 1)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 2)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 3)
>>     --- StringExclude (pos = 4)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>