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  July 2004

ZNG July 2004

Subject:

Re: Demo business case for search interoperability

From:

Peter Noerr <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:03:26 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

Thanks for the confirmation/explanation Matthew. Apologies to all for
newbie-type actions :-)  -  Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> Matthew J. Dovey
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 9:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Demo business case for search interoperability
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I think that your posting are getting through
>
> However,
>
> i) the list seems to be intelligent enough not to send the e-mail to the
> sender, so you can't rely on getting a copy back to confirm it got
> through.
> ii) there do seem to be some odd delays occasionally, which has lead to
> answers arriving out of sync
> iii) the To address gets set to [log in to unmask] whilst the Reply-To
> gets set to [log in to unmask] This may depend on mail client, but using
> *reply to all* rather than *reply to* tends to result in an e-mail being
> sent to both addresses. One of which goes through, but the other is
> rejected as a duplicate.
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > On Behalf Of Peter Noerr
> > Sent: 22 July 2004 16:20
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Demo business case for search interoperability
> >
> > Eliot, My postings to the Zing list serv seem to not get
> > through quite a lot, so I'm trying this one a second time and
> > also sending it personally.  - Peter Noerr
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> > > Of Eliot Christian
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:25 AM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: Demo business case for search interoperability
> > >
> > >
> > > At 08:42 AM 7/22/2004, you wrote:
> > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:13:48 -0400
> > > > > From: Eliot Christian <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >
> > > > > As a next step following documentation of the requirements for
> > > > > search interoperability (
> > > > > http://www.search.gov/interop/requirements.html ), I need to
> > > > > construct a simple demo showing what benefits one gets from
> > > > > standardized search services. The task is to do a side-by-side
> > > > > compare of information searching: "with a standard"
> > versus "without a standard".
> > > > >
> > > > > My immediate thought is to use a metasearch example, simply
> > > > > because metasearching by definition has to interface
> > with multiple
> > > > > search service instances.
> > > >
> > > >How are you going to do the "without a standard" version??
> > >
> > > Run the equivalent searches sequentially (e.g., Google search Web
> > > pages, LOC search of catalog records, ...) using their
> > separate user
> > > interfaces. The final step in this version is then to do an
> > > "integrate-by-hand" of the results sets.
> > >
> > > Of course, if the end goal is to achieve something like "result
> > > clusters within facet", then this final step is Really Difficult
> > > (ergo, a key selling point of the standard search service).
> > >
> > This is confusing two aspects. You are actually contemplating
> > a "federated search" ("metasearch") vs. a "sequential
> > search". The outline has nothing to do with use of standards
> > or otherwise, it is purely the search workflow. Of course
> > this is actually where the biggest productivity gains are to
> > be made, but it does not depend on 'use of standards'.
> >
> > Your "without a standard" examples would be difficult to do
> > *with* a standard as Google does not have a "standards based"
> > interface (assuming for the sake of this argument that
> > "standards based" means using a search standard like Z39.50 -
> > http is not really a comparable standard!).
> >
> > The Library of Texas system is a metasearch system using
> > Z39.50 as its search standard. A comparison to this would be
> > to run the same searches using a metasearch engine which is
> > capable of running searches using different "protocols" and
> > connecting to different interfaces. Two examples of these
> > engines are Muse (from www.museglobal.com - my company) and
> > Webfeat (from www.webfeat.com). Using these you could compare
> > federated searching and sequential searching, and standards
> > based (z39.50) vs. non, independently.
> >
> > We have some demos you could have access to - contact me if
> > interested.  - Peter Noerr ([log in to unmask])
> >
> >
> > > > > Please do let me know of any canned demos you may have on the
> > > > > shelf, or any ideas on how best to pitch this. (Of course, hard
> > > > > cost/benefit data would be nice if you have that, too!)
> > > >
> > > >I imagine that the Library of Texas people would be happy
> > for you to
> > > >use their system for a demo.  The main people to talk to would be
> > > >Kevin Marsh <[log in to unmask]> and Bill Moen
> > <[log in to unmask]>;
> > > >I've copied this message to them.
> > > >
> > > >Hope it works out!
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Eliot
> > >
> >
>

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