W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2009

[Bug 6470] [FT] ordered and/or queries

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:19:07 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LVdil-0006wa-F8@wiggum.w3.org>


--- Comment #4 from Christian Gruen <christian.gruen@gmail.com>  2009-02-07 03:19:07 ---
Hi Michael,

thanks for your easy-to-grasp answers. I have come across some other queries
for which I have no definite answers. If you, or someone else, has some time -
I'm pleased with each answer..

 a) 'A B C' ftcontains ('C' | 'A') & ('B') ordered

The intuitive answer might be: 'A' is followed by 'B', so the query will yield
true. But I'm wondering how this query is to be evaluated, as the 'ordered'
position filter and the 'ftand' connective are still out of scope if the 'ftor'
operator is being processed. The problem might not occur for this query..

 b) 'A B C' ftcontains ('C' & 'B') | ('A' & 'B') ordered

..assuming that the 'ftor' operator evaluates the position filters.

A similar problem arises for query h) from my last post:

>   h) ('A' & !'B') ordered
> The search context must contain an 'A' that is not followed by a 'B'.

Your answer seems intuitive to me, but again I'm wondering how the query
evaluation could look like. Let's take the following query:

 c) 'B A' ftcontains ('A' & !'B') ordered

This query should probably return 'true' as 'A' is not followed by a 'B'. But
the last query:

 d) 'B A' ftcontains ('A' & !'B')

will return false as the source string contains 'A' and 'B'. 

I hope I'm not stuck too deep in my own logic..

Christian, BaseX Team 

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 03:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:26 UTC