2007/1/17, Jean-Francois Dockes <<a href="mailto:jean-francois.dockes@wanadoo.fr">jean-francois.dockes@wanadoo.fr</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen writes:<br> > Right. Let's not get lost over stemming issues since it is not a huge deal<br> > (i'm not saying it is not important).<br> ><br> > Can we agree on the following: Stemming will be assumed to be on, but it is
<br> > not catastrophic if an engine just don't do stemming at all. Engines can<br> > provide an extension to explicitly turn stemming off. In other words - keep<br> > things as they are (regarding stemming).
<br><br>There seems to be strong preferences about stemming being on or off by<br>default. So why not let the default depend entirely on the backend ?</blockquote><div><br><br>Well, that is also a solution. Let the status be undefined. Ok by me.
<br> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Have no default in the spec, and let the application explicitely request a
<br>setting through the attribute, if it wants to. <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">The user-level language needs to have a way to force stemming off.
</blockquote><div><br><br>I still think it should be an optional thing - as it is now. The language supports stemming control, but it is not required. As discussed a bit earlier such extended features should probably be introspectable with a a getExtendedFeatures() method (both in simple and live api).
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">By the way, the WasabiSearchSimple spec says it's not decided if the<br>query_string for Query() is user-level or XML.
</blockquote><div><br>Do we all agree that we need to define a user level language as well? +1 from me at least.<br><br>Given a standard user level language, we dicussed a good while back the possiblity to allow embedded user strings in the xml format. This is also allowed in the Lucene query xml for example.
<br><br>There would be a special query element called <userQuery> that could be used like:<br><br><request><br> <userQuery><br> type:video AND (britney OR shakira)<br> </userQuery><br></request>
<br><br>That way we could use both user queries and real xml queries in both live and simple apis. Furthermore the sorting and grouping attributes on the request element could still be used.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I would be much in favour of using the raw user entry here.</blockquote><div><br>I would be much in favor of allowing userQuery elements embedded in the xml. It does introduce a bit of extra coding work for servers...<br>
</div><br>Cheers,<br>Mikkel<br></div>