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
> > >
> >
>
|