[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1749?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16921516#comment-16921516
]
Code Ferret commented on JENA-1749:
-----------------------------------
I'm in email contact and can discuss.
bq. Yes - my use case is limited to the query form you mention - we are just
looking up subjects. However, I may not be the only user of this
functionality. Is asking your users to change the best approach here?
JENA-1723 is prioritised as MINOR.
The _functionality_ has been clearly documented since 3.6.0 as _not supported_.
There are no unit tests to validate such use cases. The _functionality_ is a
_feature_ that just happened to work. It's unfortunate, but to support the
_feature_ looks like it requires more work than simply making changes to 2
lines of code and that I don't have time to delve into just now.
bq. Whereas the faux property is a bit of a carbuncle on the face of an old
friend.
I appreciate your opinion. Otoh, the model for the integration of Jena w/
Lucene is _one triple == one document_ and the use of {{text:withFields}} is
one way of unambiguously indicating that the query is based on a different
model and the complexities that arise can be dealt with in a clear manner.
Incorporating {{text:withFields}} does not mean that I'm suggesting to extend
the {{subjectArg}} handling to the cases that extend beyond a simple {{?s}}.
So I agree that can be left for later and would require a separate JIRA.
The use of {{text:withFields}} is an approach that came to mind. Do you have
another approach to dealing with the inherent ambiguity that your use case
exploits in:
{code}
?s text:query ( "query with fields" LUCENE_LIMIT )
{code}
?
bq. I am concerned about whether this issue will be addressed before or after
the upcoming 3.13.0 release? I would like to use the release so I would like
it fixed before or JENA-1723 pulled from the release - but its not a do or die
thing.
I appreciate the concern and we'll see how things evolve. If someone decides to
pull JENA-1723 from 3.13.0 then so be it. If things can wait until I can spend
more time on the issue then I'll address it as I have said.
> Support lucene field names in jena text queries
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JENA-1749
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1749
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Text
> Affects Versions: Jena 3.13.0
> Reporter: Brian McBride
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: stacktrace.txt
>
>
> Until recent changes made during implementation of JENA-1723, it was possible
> to have a Lucene text query that used Lucene field names. With the
> implementation of JENA-1723 such queries result in a exception
> For example:
> {quote}PREFIX xsd:
> [<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>|http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#]
> PREFIX text: [<http://jena.apache.org/text#>|http://jena.apache.org/text#]
> PREFIX ppd:
> [<http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/def/ppi/>|http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/def/ppi/]
>
> PREFIX lrcommon:
> [<http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/def/common/>|http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/def/common/]
>
> {{SELECT * {}}
> ?ppd_propertyAddress
> text:query ( "street: the" 3000000 ) .
> {{} LIMIT 1}}
> Cannot parse 'text:street: the ': Encountered " ":" ": "" at line 1, column
> 11.
> {quote}
> This is a simplifed query from a running production system that works in
> 3.12.0 but is failing in 3.13.0-SNAPSHOT.
> Some discussion and analysis of this issue has occurred in email:
> [https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ccc1d5c5eaebcddafc2dbae85f3b5901396e3ab203df6bb4014e8270@%3Cusers.jena.apache.org%3E]
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.2#803003)
