At 17:38 22-05-2003 +0100, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> > It was suggested that SRW/SRU had one serious shortcoming where
> > metasearching was concerned . . . "while seeking to simplify or
> > eliminate some of the complexities of Z39.50, the notion of
> > searching multiple databases has been dropped . . . if the
> > databases were free this would be true, but the reality is that
> > each one has revenue and royalty related business rules associated
> > with it and must be distinguished from the query."
>
>I don't understand the correlation?

The way I understood the discussion, the big issue was that many of the
content providers host multiple databases, and they have a hard time
dealing with large numbers of parallel searches against different databases
on their systems, something that frequently results from metasearch
engines. They would vastly prefer a model where the metasearch engine
(gateway) is able to bundle such requests together so they can optimize it
adequately.

> > There was also a desire for more result-set and record metadata.
>
>Were any specifics given?

Yes, the big wish was basically for more "branding", primarily in the form
of links back to the information provider... they (perhaps justifiably)
feel that their own interface is by definition the optimum way of searching
their database, and they would like to see metasearch vendors provide links
to their native interface for individual records as well as for result
sets, to make it easier for users to get to the additional services they
might provide...  but things like icons for the content vendor, etc. were
also mentioned.

--Sebastian
--
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101