Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
"Robert G. Ferrell" wrote: > > >The common users will benefit from the things like the obvious-ness of > >Boolean operations (always being OR\AND\NOT) and simplicity. > > I think this proposal has merit, although I'm not sure what, if any, role the > IETF has to play in its implementation. None. It would be the equivalent of the IETF designing the interface for e-mail clients. > I get really tired of having to switch syntax for every search engine. It would > be nice if we had a standard that all engines could adopt (or at least offer > compliance with). >From the server's point of view, supporting Z39.50v3 with the WAIS profile solves the interoperability problem, allowing a large variety of clients to launch a database search that returns an ordered set of URLs, ratings, titles and abstracts. >From the user's point of view they need only learn one user interface -- that of their favoured Z39.50 client (which might be Mozilla or a WWW/Z39.50 gateway). This is exactly analogous to the split of protocol and user interface used in the design of e-mail: the user probably doesn't know what SMTP is and their view of e-mail is that of one particular e-mail client (otherwise they'd be a lot less postings of HTML, vCard and various Microsoft crud). Essentially, the library community has already solved your problem by specifying and deploying an international standard protocol for generic search and retrieval from remote databases of free and structured text. In my view, the IETF should not develop a competing protocol. Unfortunately, the business plans of some databases rely upon the sale of advertising or ancillary products, these are not really interested in deploying a standard search interface of any type, including standards from ISO, IETF, W3C or anyone else. -- Glen Turner Network Engineer (08) 8303 3936 Australian Academic and Research Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aarnet.edu.au/ -- The revolution will not be televised, it will be digitised
Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
>The common users will benefit from the things like the obvious-ness of >Boolean operations (always being OR\AND\NOT) and simplicity. I think this proposal has merit, although I'm not sure what, if any, role the IETF has to play in its implementation. I get really tired of having to switch syntax for every search engine. It would be nice if we had a standard that all engines could adopt (or at least offer compliance with). Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Information Systems Security Officer National Business Center U. S. Dept. of the Interior [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
> > Alongwith standardizing the way the search engines take the search query, I > > feel that there should also be some standard with regard to specifying the > > context in which a search is being performed. > > ... > > Let's also require that all natural language query systems use English. > > In other words, there are good reasons why successful IETF standards > have generally avoid user interfacesNo, that's wrong. It's not only > the IETF that has avoided successful user interface standards. Anyone > who's coded with the zillions of GUI toolkits over the years knows that > "successful user interface standard" is an oxyomoron > > Until the world is willing to standardize on a single dialect of > a single human-to-human interface, why should there be a single > flavor of human-to-computer interface? > I think you're taking my proposal to the extreme. Nowhere did I define the search language, search interface or search results (although results forms are a rather nice idea). and nowhere do I say that the standard should be the only way things are implemented. research is always a blessing, but, when it comes to user interface and user input, It seems we tend to forget that there are non-technically-oriented users, which a standard will be very helpful (since they don't have to learn a new one). These users will benefit extremely from a standard, since they'll have the power to search more specifically or more generally, according to what they want, and get more accurate results. The common users will benefit from the things like the obvious-ness of Boolean operations (always being OR\AND\NOT) and simplicity. Sophisticated users can benefit from a further step like regular expressions : Say you want to search a family name in a DB. how would you do it? 6 different searches? "pickard", "picard", "pikard", "peecard", "peekard", "peeckard" ? or one search of a regular expression? "p(ee|i)(c|k|ck)ard" - (perl style) ? (I doubt common users know where the pipe sign is... (-: ) or evaluated expressions: "score:(\integer>5)" (will bring results like "score:6" or "score:12" but not "score:4" etc') (*the "search expressions" are just for illustrations) These are, off course, more suited to special cases and special DB\indices but clearly needed at some level, and there's lots to work with, so why not have a standard? it'll clearly benefit the internet community. as in, us. But it seems that IETF doesn't handle these kinds of things. maybe it should. Cheers.
Fwd: RE: Port 9704
I asked Mr. Kai Ming Chan (from Intel), what the port 9595 is usually used for and this is the answer he gave me: Daniel MD, >Port 9595 is used by the Intel Ping Discovery Service of the LANDesk product >to get some configuration information about a computer. When rececing a >Ping request (a UDP packet), the Ping Discovery Service would respond with >the requested information. Hope this help! > >Ming Best Regard's, Daniel MD ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) If you want to send me encrypted e-mail , you can do so with my PGP public key. --- Simply search for: Daniel MD or Im-Thinking
Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
Michael Richardson wrote: > However, I do not see an economic reason why would want to > implement this. They'd probably do it if they could charge for it. For example, a search engine company might decide to sell other sites (or desktop clients) access to the search engine; or they might come up with a micropayment scheme. -- /===\ |John Stracke| http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |==| |eCal Corp. |A computer without Windows is like a chocolate| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|cake without mustard. | \===/
Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Alongwith standardizing the way the search engines take the search query, I >> feel that there should also be some standard with regard to specifying the >> context in which a search is being performed. >> ... Vernon> Let's also require that all natural language query systems use English. Vernon> In other words, there are good reasons why successful IETF standards Vernon> have generally avoid user interfacesNo, that's wrong. It's not only Vernon> the IETF that has avoided successful user interface standards. Anyone Vernon> who's coded with the zillions of GUI toolkits over the years knows that Vernon> "successful user interface standard" is an oxyomoron I understand and agree that it is not the place of the IETF to standard search terms or systems. My impression is that would be useful for search engines to have somewhat standard interfaces (i.e. URLs) for their simple searches. It would be nice if: http://search..com/search?format=xml&term=IETF caused a simple search of that engine. It would be even nicer if the results were in a standard form. However, I do not see an economic reason why would want to implement this. :!mcr!:| Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster Personal: http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/People/Michael_Richardson/Bio.html mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Re: Standartization of User Input for find\search engines]
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:55:18 +0530, Pragyansmita Paul said: > Most of the search sites nowdays show how relevant the page is with respect to > the search query, they give a percentage, I think that the end user should > know what was the criteria used in coming up with that value. > And if all the search sites use some standard way of coming up with that > value, it will be all the better. Even if somebody comes up with a proprietary better scheme? If all the pages use the same scheme for computing the values, what will differentiate one from another? WHy should somebody use Google, or Yahoo, or AltaVista, if they all do Exactly The Same Thing? Also, remember that the *reason* there's a several-decade-long flame war about The Best Supercomputer Design is because different algorithms perform best on old-Cray vector architectures, some do best on SGI's NUMA, some do best on the IBM SP/2 architecture, and so on. -- Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech PGP signature
