- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 14:08:43 -0400
- To: "ZIG" <www-zig@w3.org>
Back to the attribute architecture problem (after a few weeks away) -- I propose we define a new "type", along the lines that Alan was originally suggesting. Let's start with two points we all agree upon: 1. allWords, anyWord, adjacentWords need to be changed from structure to comparison attributes. 2. We need to distinguish between word and string indexes. And of course it's the second of these that's interesting, exemplified by a search on title -- are you looking for the supplied words or the entire string within the title? Or, as Ralph once said (in a post to SRW): "Word indexes are indexes that support implicit proximity between a provided list of words. String indexes are indexes that require exact matches on the entire content of the supplied search term." I'm uncomfortable using format/structure for this distinction. As Alan suggested, look at the the bib-2 format/structure attributes: each is defined for a specific access point type. For example, "iso 8601" is a format/structure value, defined for use when "duration" is the access point. (Wouldn't make much sense if the access point were "Map Scale".) Now let me digress for a moment. I think the discussion so far has been encumbered by the presumption that any solution must be consistent with the attribute architecture as currently defined. I'm challenging that assumption. If someone comes forward and objects claiming an investment in the attribute architecture then perhaps I'll back off of this challenge. If nobody makes that claim, I don't see why we can't make some fundamental change, if we think it's crucial. I don't want to open it up for major revision -- many people think that the architecture is a good piece of work -- but if we can easily improve it, let's do it. Anyway, it seems to me that the "indexing method" is orthogonal to the format/structure, at least as format/structure is envisioned by the bib-2 usage (another good piece of work, in my view, and the only effort to date that's based on the arhitecture). I suggest that we add a new type. If you go back to the beginning of this thread, Alan hinted that he really wanted to suggest a new attribute type, along the lines of indexing- or term-extraction method, but that he felt such a suggestion would be rejected as too radical. I think it's a good idea. --Ray
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 14:08:44 UTC