Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [smila-dev] search api : groups rename to facets?

Hi,


Am Donnerstag, den 24.03.2011, 10:09 +0100 schrieb Thomas Menzel:
> hi,
>
> sorry guys that I want to talk about naming things again, but I wonder
> if we should rename the "groups" into "facets", which is the more
> commonly used term in that context – at least from what I can tell and
> have seen? or did I not get the intent of this part right?

No, you got it right, basically.

> OR 
>
> was the intent also to cover with that also the feature of clustering
> (as for instance with http://search.carrot2.org/) ?
> 
> if yes, then it might be OK to use a more broader term. However, it
> might then still be advisable to have 2 diff terms for these 2
> features as to be able to separate them and be able to use both and
> not have to decide to use either the one or the other thru
> transmitting a mode flag.

Indeed my intention was to use a quite general name for result
structures of this form, because we had applications in which such
structures were created by different algorithms and methods, but each
application uses usually only a single way to do it, so it's easier to
reuse a general name instead of having to introduce a new special name 
each time and maybe having to adapt the user interface elements that 
view these structures (which can often be presented in the same way).

On the other hand, this definition does not forbid you to use the name
"facets" in your own application. We cannot predict and predefine names
for all possible result elements in the world, anyway, so it's just a
proposal and then it's probably better to not use too specific names. We
could even propose to put such "group/facet/cluster/category"-like
structures under one of these names and make the result helper a bit
more flexible. I could even think of applications that produce more than
of such "groupings" in a single request, then it must use multiple
names. However, in the end it's the decision of the implementor of the
pipelets how to name the result elements.

Cheers,
Jürgen.



Back to the top