Yikes.. I go off to work on another project for a couple of months and
the list jumps into life with a huge discussion of meta-search. Sorry I
missed that :(
For what it's worth, a European meeting would be a wonderful idea
(IMNSHO)... Copenhagen is nice this time of year? ;)
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 10:14, Matthew J. Dovey wrote:
> > How about the week of August 18?
> I'm afraid I'm not available that week (or the following week).
> > > Unless it was in Europe this year?
> > I expect that the later (Autumn) meeting will be in DC, and
> > so, though I'd
> > like the August meeting in DC, I'm not pushing too hard for
> > that (though if
> > we do it after the week of August 18 I can't go anywhere).
> > However, I do think
> > it needs to be in the US, if we're going to persuade some of
> > the metasearch
> > folks to come.
> Mmmmm, my travel budget this year is now pretty low, so *I*'d presonally
> favour European venues...
> > Well that's what I'm thinking but I could be convinced
> > otherwise. Though I
> > think it would be real tricky to try to ascertain
> > requirements and get them
> > into 1.1, without undue delay to 1.1.
> I think that we are more or less there with the 1.1 features (with the
> possible exceptions of the range searching and record metadata) - it
> just needs that burst of concentrated effort and consensus which is
> better done face to face (or at least teleconference) than via e-mail.
> On the other hand I don't think we have a particularly good grasp of
> what the metasearch folks need (at present the solutions vary from a
> completely new WebService to SRW 1.0 over http 1.1). I'm not that
> concerned that metasearch might be a 1.2 or 2.0 (or whatever) feature as
> long as we identify a timeframe: we have various options from rolling
> metasearch with other stuff into a 1.2/2.0 release about 9 months after
> 1.1; or we might do an iterim 1.15 (or whatever version number you
> prefer) release a few months after 1.1 which just adds metasearch. At
> present we therefore need to get a better idea of requirements and
> urgency from the metasearch folks.
> On a related matter, one of the other concerns from the metasearch crew
> is about branding. One of the things I focused on in a report I did for
> the JISC on service descriptions is the wealth of bradning type
> information in traditional Explain. For instance:
> An icon used to represent this database (in machine presentable form)
> (today this would probably be termed a logo rather than icon)
> Whether there is charge to access this database.
> A human-readable name or title for the database
> A description of the database, in human readable text.
> Any disclaimers concerning this database, in human readable text.
> News about this database, in human readable text.
> Hours of operation that this database is available.
> Best time to access this database, in human readable text.
> A description of copyright issues relating to this database, in human
> readable text.
> A notice concerning copyright which the target expects the origin to
> display to the user if possible, in human readable text.
> Description and contact information for the database producer, database
> supplier, and for how to submit material for inclusion in this database,
> in human readable text.
> At a quick glance many of these aren't yet in ZeeRex. Some may need a
> little thought (e.g. News about database might be better as a link to an
> RSS feed, or even embedded RSS, than a string?) but I would have thought
> it not too difficult to add these in ZeeRex 1.9/2.0 and hence tackle
> this issue. Also we may need to consider branding information in our
> record metadata discussions.
Ian Ibbotson ([log in to unmask])
Knowledge Integration Ltd
Sheffield Science & Technology Parks