- From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:46:57 -0400
- To: <www-zig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <01f001c34d76$1ccd1d70$849c938c@lib.loc.gov>
More on the attribute proposal (and you won't hear further from me for the next two weeks -- I'm trying hard to get this out last minute, rather than wait two week, which however would likely result in a more rational note) ..... There's consensus (among those who have participated in this discussion) that allTheseWords, anyOfTheseWords, adjacentWords should be changed from Structure/format to Comparison attributes. There's less consensus about adding two new Structure/format attributes, (1) word(s), and (2) string (or 'completeValue'). Mike feels strongly that they should be added, and I don't feel strongly but am somewhat uncomfortable about adding them (without clarifying certain other parts of the proposal). I don't know how strongly Alan feel. And I'd like to get other opinions. This is how I see it: if the query term is a set of words, and the comparison attribute is one of the above three, then clearly a structure/attribute to indicate "words" is not necessary. Conversely, if the desire is to search for words (as opposed to a complete string) then can the comparison attribute be anything but one of these three? (Ignoring the case of non-adjacent proximity which involves a completely different construct.) However, what if the term is a single word? If the intent is to search for it as a word (not a string), I don't think Alan's proposal addresses whether this should fit within the three attributes proposed - all three would mean the same thing, and so there may be sentiment for separating out the single-word case. If so, then I can see a stronger argument for having 'word' and 'string' format/structure values. So I see two possibilities: 1. A single-word search would be handled by one of the word-comparison attributes (one of these would be "singled-out" for this use), no format/structure attribute included. If the term is a single-word but is to be searched as a string, then another comparison would be used. [aside: I'm not sure which one though. "Equal" seems to be precluded, since the Utility set prose says that it cannot be used with expansion/interpretation. On the other hand, Bath uses it. This may be another defect that we should address.] 2. When the term is a single-word, the comparison attribute may not be one of the above three (they can only be used for multiple words) and the format/structure 'word' or 'string' is supplied. I think we need to nail down one of these two, and I don't really care which. --Ray
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 17:46:58 UTC