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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  August 2004

ZNG August 2004

Subject:

Re: Abstract concepts as search indexes

From:

Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:48:33 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (51 lines)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Eliot Christian wrote:
> At 06:02 AM 8/26/2004, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>> I tried using the index "dc.title" with record schema "dc".
>>> But, I get disconcerting results--most of the retrieved
>>> records do not have my search term value in the XML element
>>> called "dc.title". On the surface, this looks badly broken.

>> The perils of data transformation is that information gets lost or
>> translated badly.

> Perhaps so, but in my example at LoC the server behaves correctly
> according to the standard, yet the results are counter-intuitive.
> This is an issue for the standard, not merely an implementation.

I don't think there's anything that the standard can mandate to fix this,
however? If you search a very broad index, and then request a very
narrow schema, then I don't see how we could require that the server put
the matched element into the record.
Equally a very specific index and a very narrow schema are likely to not
coincide. Searching for any of the numeric values in my CCG database
won't show up in a DC representation of the record, because DCMI in their
wisdom didn't include a generic 'numeric value' field.

Or do you mean that servers should have the same mapping for DC schema as
for the DC context set specifically?


>> [...] the issue is more that if you're mapping a field to a
>> dc index, then it should also be mapped to the same dc schema
>> element as they do have the same semantics.

> OK, then it follows that one should NOT use dc elements as
> generalized search access points. The notion of inheriting
> "existing" elements doe not make sense if such elements are
> also associated with a particular record schema.

I don't follow. Nothing (now) says that you have to expose records in the
DC schema. I think we should add a recommendation that if you allow
retrieval via the DC schema then you should have the same mappings for the
schema as for the indexes.

Rob


       ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
     ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
   ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I

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