- From: Sihem Amer-Yahia <sihem@research.att.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:53:09 -0500 (EST)
- To: andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Dear Andrew, You will soon get an official response from the Full-Text group that will address your concerns in more details. Thanks, Sihem >Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:49:25 +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 >Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="------------070605080605090704090606" >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,HTML_30_40, > HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TITLE_EMPTY autolearn=no version=3.0.1 >Content-Length: 8891 > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >--------------070605080605090704090606 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >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, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >--------------070605080605090704090606 >Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> ><html> ><head> > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> > <title></title> ></head> ><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> >Dear Sihem,<br> ><br> >Thank you for your reply.<br> >The question comes from when I evaluate "occurs at most 2" and the >keyword appears 4 times in context node.<br> >I evaluate it as "occurs not at least 3" using negation over "occurs at >least 3".<br> >I realize that Result 1 is better than Result 2.<br> ><br> >Regards,<br> >Andrew<br> ><br> >Sihem Amer-Yahia wrote:<br> ><blockquote type="cite" > cite="mid200503211912.j2LJCQ8h10230519@chips.research.att.com"> > <pre wrap=""> >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 > > </pre> > <blockquote type="cite"> > <pre wrap="">Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:15:47 +1100 >From: andrewc <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au"><andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au></a> >Reply-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au">andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au</a> >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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au">andrew.cao@cisra.canon.com.au</a> does not designate permitted sender hosts) >X-Original-To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org">public-qt-comments@w3.org</a> >X-Archived-At: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.w3.org/mid/4230F143.80202@cisra.canon.com.au">http://www.w3.org/mid/4230F143.80202@cisra.canon.com.au</a> >Resent-From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org">public-qt-comments@w3.org</a> >X-Mailing-List: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org"><public-qt-comments@w3.org></a> archive/latest/5988 >X-Loop: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-qt-comments@w3.org">public-qt-comments@w3.org</a> >Sender: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org">public-qt-comments-request@w3.org</a> >Resent-Sender: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org">public-qt-comments-request@w3.org</a> >Precedence: list >List-Id: <public-qt-comments.w3.org> >List-Help: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.w3.org/Mail/"><http://www.w3.org/Mail/></a> >List-Unsubscribe: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe"><mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe></a> >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, > > > > > </pre> > </blockquote> > <pre wrap=""><!----> > > > </pre> ></blockquote> ></body> ></html> > >--------------070605080605090704090606-- > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 21:53:10 UTC