cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

KM Navigation Iview based on TREX Search

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi,

We have been working extensively with Querybased taxonomies to create Cockpit overviews of documents. Ie. 4 iviews on the same page showing the content of different querybased-taxonomies.

I've heard that it is possible (and also recommended) to create an iview, which is displaying the KM documents "on-the-fly" based on a TREX query instead of pointing to a Taxonomy.

If it is possible, how is it done??

/hco

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Eric,

That sounds pretty much like what I'm looking for

Does it show the search field - because I basically just want the same functionality as if I pointed to a taxonomy ?

Do you know where I can find a complete list of the possible values for the Querystring on the search iview?

/hans

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hans -

It does show the search field.

Also, under the advanced search, you can select these categories under Predefined Properties... if you add them the Predefined Properties list for the search window.

I <i>wish</i> I had a list of all the querystring arguments. That would be handy.

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hans -

I think I have done something resembling what you want to do...

First, I created a new metadata property named "z_cm_category" which is multivalued. It's values can be, for example, Accounting, HR, Operations, Sales, etc. I assigned this property to the "default" group, which makes it accessible on a KM doc's Miscellaneous property tab.

Second, I assigned these categories to various documents in KM.

Third, I created KM Search iviews (based on the KM Search iView template).

In these iviews, there is a property named "query".

To the "query" property's value, I appended this:

<b>&SelectedPredefinedProps=default:z_cm_category(value=HR/operator=EQ)&SearchTerm=*</b>

This iview, when launched, returns the results of all docs which are categoried as HR docs.

Does this make sense? I realize that it was a very high-level explanation.