new RI document

[Paul Harrison]

On 14.06.2006, at 19:38, Ray Plante wrote:

>> If keyword search on the registry interface is so loosely specified
>> (as, IIRC, it is now) that the behaviour can't be predicted, then
>> clients may well  be better off constructing their own adql/xquery
>> expressions that implement 'keyword search' for their users, but
>> under their own, predictable, terms.
>
> When exact and consistant results are important.
>
>> Actually, this sounds like the most sensible approach anyhow
>
>> In which case, would be best route be to simplify the registry spec &
>> implementations by removing keyword search altogether? Or replacing
>> it with a 'full text literal match search'
>
> Our current implementations, I think, have shown that the keyword  
> search,
> even in its loosely-specified state, is useful.
>

I think that I have to agree with Noel here - keyword searches that  
give different results for different implementations over the same  
data set are very confusing for the end user - it lowers the  
confidence of the end user about the "completeness" of the registry  
coverage of the available resources. I found this aspect confusing  
myself when I tried to query various registries to formulate an an  
answer to Roy's architecture roadmap - and I know my way around  
pretty well!

I think that keyword search ought to be either over a fixed mandatory  
list of fields or perhaps as Noel suggests 'full text literal match  
search' - In the Google age, this is what people expect of a query  
that consists of a single word.

Paul.