Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!shinobu!odin!odin.corp.sgi.com!hargrove From: hargrove@bee.corp.sgi.com (Mark Hargrove) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: >Fault-tolerant Information Recall Message-ID: Date: 7 Apr 90 08:38:08 GMT References: <1990Apr3.200220.9513@sctc.com> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com Distribution: comp.databases Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mtn. View, CA Lines: 21 In-reply-to: endrizzi@sctc.com's message of 3 Apr 90 20:02:20 GMT In article <1990Apr3.200220.9513@sctc.com> endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) writes: Fault-tolerant searches always succeed. FT searches return a list of APPROXIMATE matches, of which the EXACT (or correct) match may or may not be present in this list. A common example of fault-tolerant searching is a spelling checker. Most spelling checkers will always return a list of APPROXIMATE matches, of which the EXACT (or correct) spelling may or may not be present in the list This is a powerful notion, and certainly non-trivial. As a long time user of SQL and several other QBF applications, I've spent many an hour contstructing "approximate" searches using regex() (or similar) style patterns. A query language that did approximate matching for me automatically is a bit scary. How would you control the degree of "approximation?" I could argue that every row in a database was approximately correct, since it contained Roman characters, or Arabic digits. I might be able to conceive of a circumstance where this is desireable, but for *my* work, it wouldn't be useful. How do you intend to define "approximately?"