#508: Combined SPIRES/Invenio syntax queries
------------------------+----------------------
Reporter: tbrooks | Owner: valkyrie
Type: defect | Status: in_merge
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: WebSearch | Version:
Resolution: | Keywords:
------------------------+----------------------
Comment (by simko):
Replying to [comment:4 tbrooks]:
> Given the stats that Valkyrie reported, showing that a large number of
people were apparently omitting the find, I think respecting their
behavior is easier than forcing them to change.
I think nobody was proposing that. Personally I had proposed some
guess work as to whether we should pass via SPIRES syntax parser in
the absence of the leading "find" based on the query wording. Users
would still be able to continue typing their SPIRES syntax queries
without leading "find", if they want, since we would auto-complete it
for them, so to speak.
I think my proposal simply means not to call SPIRES syntax parser
layer always, but only when we think it is needed. Hence I labelled
it as an alternative. Could work if our guess work is good enough.
This may help for user queries like `ps` cited above, or for queries
like `sd shell`. (Do we interpret this as a SPIRES search for an
experiment called shell, or as a free text search à la Google for sd
shell model calculations?)
Guessing about leading find and filling it in for the users, making it
clear that they can use the system in one way or the other, may help
in distinguishing the two ways of searching very clearly, satisfying
both the old-time SPIRES users and the Google generation, without
forcing any of them to change. Again, provided that the guess work is
good enough... If it is not, then this is probably not so advantageous
an alternative.
> More worrisome to me is that the links in searches like citesummary
format and other places with autogenerated searches (facets? "click here
to remove published papers"? similar controls...) ''must'' mix syntaxes
since they must work whether the initial search that led to this result
could have come from either syntax.
The root part of the query keeps living in the SPIRES style already,
so maybe we can simply attach the rest of the query in the SPIRES
style too. Surely we can find equivalents, e.g. `collection:citeable`
should be straightforward, and we can invent stuff for `cited:10->20`
and the like. So the SPIRES syntax users could be shown only pure
SPIRES syntax, if we want.
However, this is not really needed if we keep the leading find, since
the mixed syntax will work perfectly in this case. I was only musing
about whether it is useful to //always// call the SPIRES layer,
obviating the need for the leading find, as you have put it; or
whether we should call it only when we think we should.
--
Ticket URL: <http://invenio-software.org/ticket/508#comment:5>
Invenio <http://invenio-software.org>
