search

hbz / nwbib

Die Nordrhein-Westfälische Bibliographie
http://nwbib.de
3 stars 2 forks source link

Support boolean operators in advanced search #47

Open fsteeg opened 10 years ago

acka47 commented 9 years ago

AND, NOT and OR queries are already possible – although the system works quite counterintuive.

This is how I can make an AND query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval+k%C3%B6ln (= "karneval köln" in the query field) Also works: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=%2Bkarneval+%2Bk%C3%B6ln (= "+karneval +köln" in the search field)

This is how I can make an OR query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval%2Bk%C3%B6ln (= "karneval+köln" in the search field)

This is how I can make a NOT query: http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?location=&q=karneval+-k%C3%B6ln (= "karneval -köln" in the search field)

We should be able to take advantage of this for proper boolean search options. The customers might be satisfied with the common way for doing this, i.e.:

acka47 commented 9 years ago

We should be able to take advantage of this for proper boolean search options. The customers might be satisfied with the common way for doing this, i.e.:

  • AND: "karneval+köln"
  • OR: "karneval köln"
  • NOT: "karneval -köln" (as already implemented)

Sorry, I have to correct this. As customers want – and already have – a default AND search, it should look like this:

Thus, we just have to adjust the OR query.

fsteeg commented 9 years ago

I'm not sure what needs to be done here. Is this about UI? Because right now all of this works:

karneval AND köln karneval OR köln karneval AND NOT köln

http://lobid.org/nwbib/search?q=karneval+AND+NOT+köln

fsteeg commented 9 years ago

Reassigning, as discussed offline, to clarify requirements by stakeholders.

fsteeg commented 8 years ago

This has been mentioned in multiple sections as high priority in the most recent mail by stakeholders (GC, 2015-12-10). From what I understand the main issue is that boolean operators work for the simple search but not for the advanced search. Will investigate support in advanced search.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

@fsteeg Great you pick this up. Just thought about this, when looking at the Agenda for our tomorrow meeting. It would be great if you had an estimate for implementation tomorrow.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

G.C. wrote on 2015-12-10:

Funktion der Operatoren im Suchschlitz: Wir votieren für die Angleichung der Booleschen Operatoren im Suchschlitz und in der Erweiterten Suche und für eine Trunkierungsmöglichkeit, die mit hoher Priorität bewertet werden. Sollte dies nicht bis März realisierbar sein, sollte im Suchschlitz nur die UND-Verknüpfung angeboten werden.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

We won't implement this for now. I will ask what stakeholders mean by " sollte im Suchschlitz nur die UND-Verknüpfung angeboten werden".

fsteeg commented 8 years ago

I'd also mention that it would be a pity to lose this functionality in the simple search.

acka47 commented 6 years ago

I just stumbled over this one. @fsteeg, please think about whether this might be implemented easier now with API 2.0.

fsteeg commented 6 years ago

From what I understand the main issue is that boolean operators work for the simple search but not for the advanced search.

https://nwbib.de/search?subject=köln+AND+NOT+dom