- From: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:12:11 +0200
- To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > There are two key features here: > > > > + full text is an index, not a restriction (unlike regexs). > > + scoring matters, as does limiting hits > > > > It might be viable to have syntax and integration into evaluation without defining what full text results are. I fully agree. > > Unfortunately, scoring is useful only if order is preserved. I don't think so. Scoring for example makes sense, if you only want to select results above a certain threshold. > > The needing ?text_exp to be a ground term of bound variable at the point of evaluation is also a bit of a nuisance. > > > > Thus, specific syntax for full text, and not making it look like a property, would be a step forward. > > > > TEXT(?x, 'word1 word2'[, relevance][, limit]) Maybe without limit, if we allow result modifiers in subqueries. cheers, Simon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoAHwsACgkQQ0Lz1fXAQeOnaACeO/l2ekvFrMuN4WgijoWBTaxQ AsAAoMpqcEpYxvNef2Or2k2f/zXqLec7 =QRj9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 11:12:57 UTC