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
> >
>