LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  September 2003

ZNG September 2003

Subject:

Betr.: Re: Agenda Item: Metasearching - Multi-database search

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:05:21 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (121 lines)

I expect they are doing now already something to get a query, dispatch
the query over several databases and give a response. As such it is a
black box and we only have to specify how we specify the databases to be
searched in and how we can recognize the originating databases in the
response. How a query is split up into different queries is the
responsibility of the target system and we do not have to worry. For the
response I see three possibilities (I assumes a single response).
1) Different searchretrieveresponses in a single message
2) One searchretrieveresponse but for each record an SRW: field
indication the original collections
3) The originating database is part of the metadata and we do not have
to worry at all.
I prefer 2) although 3) will always be possible.
For the request I do not think it will be a problem to allow an extra
parameter containing the list of databases or a refernce to the list of
databases.
In SRU it can even be solved without that: each request consists of a
base-URL and the SRU-parameters. We include local parameters in the
base-URL. We have two parameters for this purpose: collection (specifies
the collection you want to search in) and base (specifies the base part
of the query enable virtual collections)

Theo


>>> [log in to unmask] 9/17/03 10:03:17 nm >>>
I thought the requirement was to send the *same* query to multiple
databases
(at the same server). Sending *different* queries would be complex, but
I
don't understand that to be a firm requirement. Is is?

And if not, wouldn't sending the *same* query be significantly simpler
--
all we need to do is allow specification of multiple destinations (and
there
are a number of ways to do that).

And on the response: is it necessary to bundle responses together or
is
multiple responses ok?

--Ray

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian Hammer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:46 PM
Subject: Agenda Item: Metasearching - Multi-database search


> Hi All,
>
> Ray asked Brad Buckley of Gale to provide his input on
Metasearch-specific
> requirements. His response to Ray echoes discussion from the
Metasearch
> workshop in Denver earlier this year and I think it's a good point
to
raise.
>
> Content-providers like Gale, who hosts large numbers of databases,
are
> faced with a peculiar challenge from metasearch engines. Specifically
it
> involves metasearchers automatically launching parallel searches
against
> several Gale-owned databases at once. This is perceived as a useful
service
> by the developers and operators of metasearch engines, but it
creates
> issues related to performance for the operator of the databases.
Picture a
> situation where a single user fires off a search in a metasearch
portal
> which is automatically turned into 10, 20, or 100 parallel search
> operations against the server.. imagine this kind of activity from a
> popular metasearch portal, and things might start to get pretty hot
in the
> server pit at Gale (for example).
>
> In a nutshell, the proposal is for a mechanism that allows a
metasearch
> engine to 'bundle' these searches into a single request, and
similarly to
> allow the server to bundle the responses into a single package.
>
> We're talking about something that goes beyond mere multi-database
> searching in the original Z39.50 sense of the word.. we need
individual
> hit-counts (and result sets) back from the server, and we will
probably in
> some cases wish to send different query expressions to different
> databases... it comes much more close to the idea of a compound PDU
model
> which was discussed for Z39.50 a while back. A way to implement this
would
> be to introduce a "wrapper" element to allow multiple SRW requests to
go
in
> the same SOAP package. Another benefit for the content provider would
be
> the ability to manage resources by refusing individual component
requests
> (eg. during peak loads) without having to fail all requests.
Presumably
> this would allow greater "fairness" in managing scant resources.
>
> I am personally ambivalent about this, and even as a metasearch
engine
> developer, I feel that there are some thorny issues here. But this is
an
> attempt to honestly represent a requirement that was put on the table
by
> representatives of the content providers in Denver.
>
> --Sebastian
> --
> Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager