Date:Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:50:50 -0500
Reply-To:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:"Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: Adlib Base profile
Comments:To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of
> Matthew J. Dovey
>
> Ralph may correct me but his "BasicIndex" which is searched when the
> index is omitted is a conjunction of multiple "indexes" rather than
> "fields" ("It is the union, more or less, of a number of subject rich
> indexes"). i.e.
Sorry, that "more or less" was the qualifier that lets me wiggle out of
that. My BasicIndex is an index on the fields that I think are
interesting. There are probably more specific indexes on those fields.
But I also omit some of the fields that were in those more specific
indexes. Hence the "more or less".
> Tolkien
>
> is equivalent to some query of the form
>
> index1 Tolkien or index2 Tolkien or index2 Tolkien or ...
That is specifically what I *don't* do. I don't want to OR together 100
terms for every unqualified term entered.
> My semantics for serverChoice and serverDefault are that they are
> equivalent to
>
> index Tolkien
That is exactly what I use serverChoice for.
> Where that index is a single index which could be explicitly used in a
> CQL query. From Ralph's description, you can't do an equivalent
explicit
> CQL query of the form
>
> BasicIndex Tolkien
But I can do cql.serverchoice Tolkien
Ralph