Skip to main content

The ONEAR Mystery

One of the things I still don't understand about the search syntax on Lexis Advance is: Why include the ONEAR/n Connector? Wait . . . You don't know about the ONEAR Connector?! Well, I'm not surprised, because no else seems to know about it either (including most employees of LexisNexis)!

First, of all, every person I've mentioned this Connector to has reacted the same way: "ONEAR? What's that mean? That's a dumb name!"

Second, it's actually a redundant Connector. According to the list on the Connectors tab of the Search Tips form page in Lexis Advance, the ONEAR connector (which is the last Connector listed) should be used when you want to "Include words where the first word precedes the second by not more than 'n' words". Hmm . . . Why does that sound familiar? . . . Oh, yeah. Because the fifth Connector listed is the PRE/n Connector, and its stated function is to "Include words where the first word precedes the second by not more than 'n' words"!

Take your time. Go ahead and read those two descriptions again. I'll wait. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. They are the exact same description!

So here's my question: Why add ONEAR, a Connector that was not included in the Beta version and is not available through lexis.com, when you're going back and adding PRE/n, a Connector that lexis.com users are already comfortable with and that does the exact same thing?!

Attempting to Solve the Mystery

Back in June 2011, when I was preparing an initial critique of what was then called Lexis Advance for Law Schools BETA, I spent some time investigating the LexisNexis Marketing assertion that they had "moved to the new web standard set of Boolean connectors". Considering no other legal search engine relied upon the NEAR Connector (which is functionally identical to the trusty, old W/n Connector), I sought to identify where this new Connector had come from.

My research at that time led me to a company called Exalead. Exalead is "a global software provider in the enterprise and Web search markets, and the maker of . . . the industry's top platform for Search-Based Applications (SBAs)." A description of Exalead's main platform sounds remarkably similar to the "innovations" of Lexis Advance, and they utilize a small set of simple Connectors, including the NEAR Connector. But, as far as I can tell, they do not use the ONEAR Connector.

Now, it appears the solution might be much simpler than that. LexisNexis may be using an SBA as part of Lexis Advance, but they also may just be utilizing a relatively new programming language called FAST Query Language (or FQL). Developed for Microsoft FAST Search Server 2010 for SharePoint, "FQL is a query language providing advanced query capabilities against textual content". FQL is relatively simple to use, allows dynamic manipulation of content, and, most importantly (for my investigation), it utilizes the ONEAR Connector.

Mystery solved. Or is it? Considering all that FQL apparently can do, if LexisNexis is using it for the development of Lexis Advance, why can't we have the capitalization and pluralization commands that lexis.com allows? I guess that's the real mystery.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...