This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4702 - [FT] editorial: 2.3.1 Using Weights Within a Scored FTContainsExpr
Summary: [FT] editorial: 2.3.1 Using Weights Within a Scored FTContainsExpr
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Full Text 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pat Case
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-06-23 09:59 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-10-26 22:25 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2007-06-23 09:59:00 UTC
2.3.1 Using Weights Within a Scored FTContainsExpr

[1]
para 1
"Syntactically weight declarations"
    After "Syntactically", insert a comma.

[2]
para 2
"The effect of weights on the result score"
    s/result/resulting/ maybe

[3]
"However, weight declarations must follow these rules:"
    Actually, only point #3 (the restriction to 0 - 1000) is a rule for
    weight declarations to follow. The other two points are rules for
    the scoring algorithm to follow.

[4]
"1. Weights in an FTContainsExpr are significant only in relation to each
other"
    [4a]
    Is it possible to detect if a scoring algorithm breaks this rule?

    [4b]
    When you say "in an FTContainsExpr", does that include nested
    FTContainsExprs?

    [4c]
    What should the scoring algorithm do with cases like this?:
        let score $s :=
            $b/content ftcontains ("web site" weight 0.5)
            and
            $b/content ftcontains ("usability" weight 2)
    (Note two separate FTContainsExprs.)

[5]
"1. .... to each other; and"
    s/; and/./ (for consistency with other points)
Comment 1 Jim Melton 2007-09-13 23:02:25 UTC
As decided in meeting #152 (the minutes of which are at the member-only URI http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-query-fttf/2007Sep/0005.html), items [1], [2], and [5] have been resolved. 

That leaves items [3], [4a], [4b], and [4c] remaining to be resolved. 
Comment 2 Pat Case 2007-10-16 12:27:25 UTC
[3] The FTTF agreed. The text was reorganized as follows:
The weight MUST have an absolute value between 0.0 and 1000.0 inclusive.
The weights assigned are not related to any absolute standard, but typically have a relationship to other weights within the same FTContains expression.
The effect of weights on the resulting score is implementation-dependent. However, scoring algorithms MUST conform to these constraints:
1. When no explicit weight is specified, the default weight is 1.0; and
2. Weight declarations in an FTContainsExpr for which no scores are evaluated are ignored.
[4a]The FTTF agreed. We changed the sentence to:
The weights assigned are not related to any absolute standard, but typically have a relationship to other weights within the same FTContains expression. 
[4b] No change.
[4c] No change.

These changes will appear in the next build of the internal Full-Text language
after the October 11 build, and in the next public version. They close the last
items in this bug. 

Michael, if you approve of the changes, please mark the bug closed.