Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.195 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type;
        b=SJVg0pgC77QjI2jNzJJ3wI6zgTbo2mRtRZLj+V3FYt2wfYJ2eyzlwPT3xmXnmrr8L7S/bN8aAjysDLwJZhWnnKM4H+sb5j0+1hll1pQeqvZdJy2M0/BjGtULm2iuzK4LIkPXBLAC8RbKiRqrfDvbhVZpPL6rj5YwRfrAxfmX7M8=
Message-ID: <50f433360509212114242cf42e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:14:57 -0700
From: Jeff Rodenburg <jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Jeff Rodenburg <jeff.rodenburg@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Suggestions for analysis
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_987_25595597.1127362497391"

------=_Part_987_25595597.1127362497391
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I'm looking for some suggestions on an analyzer decision. I've got my own
thoughts to this already, but would like some initial feedback on it first.

The scenario:

   - An index of geographic information: cities, towns, states,
   neighborhoods, zipcodes, generic names, etc. Examples are "New York, NY"=
,
   "New York", "Midtown", "10012", "The Big Apple".
   - I have these mapped to underlying geographic data points: census
   data, postal data, mapping data, etc.
   - I want some of these to carry more precedence than others when
   conflicting/matching terms exist, i.e. "Washington" should score
   Washington D.C. higher than the state of Washington. This would be
   decided on an item-by-item basis, and not dictated by one broad field.
   - I need the right mix for searches to work as I expect. As an
   example, a search for "Wedgewood WA" would ideally not match "Wedgewood =
GA".

I'm starting with the StandardAnalyzer and thinking of possibly extending i=
t
to carry in some of the business rules meant to come into play for
tie-breakers.

Comments appreciated.

Thanks,
jeff r.

------=_Part_987_25595597.1127362497391--