Hi Marcel,
doesn't that mean I never can be sure I'll get a proper result when
searching for the path of a node?
Best regards,
Dominik
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Marcel Reutegger
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/5/21 Dominik Süß :
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > after having some time of indirect contact with JCR throught sling and
> day
> > crx/cq I now think it's time to get in touch with jackrabbit directly. As
> > the subject says I do this after having an idea which I'd like to share
> and
> > need some help to realize (since my lucene experiences are close to
> nothing
> > but pure usage & theory). I did try to start with a proof of concept but
> as
> > I looked in the current implementations of search in jcr I had to realize
> I
> > need someone who could give me a jumpstart and does the first steps
> together
> > with me. So here I go with my idea:
> >
> > I recently had some thoughts about something I'd call sementic distance
> in
> > multidimensional hierachies (content structures + hierarchical tagging
> like
> > in CQ 5 [1]).
> >
> > The task I would like to fullfill: Find the semantically closest nodes
> for a
> > given node.
> >
> > I postulate that structure represents the semantic relation as well as
> the
> > referenced tags are in a hierarchie that represents semantic relations.
> > Furthermore I postulate subnodes are semanticaly a subset of the "type"
> of
> > the parentnode (not thinking of jcr-types but in semantical
> classifications)
> > This leads into the following thesis: The distance to the closest shared
> > parentnode represents the unidirectional distance of a node to another
> node.
> > The result is that a whole branch has the same distance to a node. (which
> > should be correct since the subnode in the branch belongs to the parent
> node
> > which connects the branches we have to look at).
> >
> > My try to figure out a good way to produce an index for this really seams
> to
> > be hard so I rethought my assumptions and came up with the following way
> of
> > determining the distance without indexing the explicit distance (came up
> > with this thought after reading a bit about the Analyzers and Stemming).
> >
> > 1. For indexing all referenced taghandles and the own handle will be
> taken
> > into account for indexing
> > 2. an analyzer produces stringtokens out of each handle. Each handle will
> be
> > split up in multiple handles by removing the last node till the rootnode
> is
> > reached (so the node and every parentnode is indexed for this node as
> well
> > as for each referenced tag)
>
> this will only work as long as you don't move nodes. moving a node in
> jackrabbit is a light weight operation, which means only the moved
> node is re-indexed. all descendant nodes are kept untouched even
> though their path (handle) changed!
>
> regards
> marcel
>
> > 3. The query has to built based on a given handle since I want to search
> for
> > the semantically closest nodes.
> > 4. The query is built the same way as the Analyzer has to split the
> handle
> > in all parent handles.
> > Result: A 100% match can only be produced for the same node (for all
> other
> > nodes at least the own handle of the node is missing). The "semantically"
> > closer a node is the more handles will match wich will result in an
> ordering
> > as I intended. Et Voilá we have all we need to search for search
> > semantically close pages in a proper sorting order.
> >
> > I might have a gap in my conclusions but didn't realise it yet, Id love
> to
> > have some feedback and would appreciate some help to get startet with the
> > mentioned proof of concept.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Dominik
> >
> > [1] http://dev.day.com/microsling/content/blogs/main/cq5tags.html
> >
>