- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:32:16 +0200
- To: "Chris Bizer" <chris@bizer.de>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Chris, On Friday 03 July 2009 17:05:03 Chris Bizer wrote: > How are the chances that one of these functions will be free-text search? I am afraid they are very slim at this point, as Lee said, the WG gave it careful consideration and it fell just outside. I was the main champion of free-text search in the working group, and we spend quite a lot of time on it on the face-to-face, where I defended it violently, to the extent that I ended up attacking the OWL entailment feature (which I certainly see as useful), as I figured the only way to get freetext in was that OWL Entailment had to go out of the time-permitting list. Now, I think that the overall progress of the working group is important, so we will not raise a formal objection over this matter, but if the community at large decides to cry "what were you thinking?", I will be sympathetic to their voices. :-) Myself, I regard it a lost battle for now. >Today, people have to use dirty hacks like FILTER regex(?label, "%word1%") >to emulate free text search. Indeed. Several different approaches were discussed, including XPath/XQuery freetext, which the group felt were overkill for us. In an attempt to make the requirements more manageable, I suggested that we only support the typical website "search box", i.e. a freetext search that consists of a few words, that may or may not be truncated, may or may not be combined with AND and OR. The WG noted that these requirements could all be met by the hacks you described above, and rather than introducing a possibly large and risky feature, one should instead use the freetext indexing engine to optimize certain regexp queries. I have allready posted a feature request for this in Virtuoso: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2796431&group_id=161622&atid=820577 Also, we have noted that the main cost of migrating from one SPARQL backend to another was the way freetext search is dealt with in different systems. This is a problem for SPARQL. So, this is where it stands from my perspective. Kind regards Kjetil Kjernsmo -- Senior Knowledge Engineer / SPARQL F&R Editor Mobile: +47 986 48 234 Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com Web: http://www.computas.com/ | SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE | Computas AS PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 1001
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:32:45 UTC