Print

Print


Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:

>>is there any reason why you couldn't produce search points for things
>>    
>>
>like:
>  
>
>>keyword
>>name
>>subject
>>    
>>
>
>We absolutely can define these search points. It takes some work. And it
>might be beyond the scope of MODS. Or it might not. Or part of it might and
>part not.
>
>Take 'name' for example.  If you want to define a CQL search point 'name'
>you first want to decide what the scope is.  Let's say we use MODS as a
>reference format in making that decision.  Do you want to define a 'name'
>search point such that if you search on 'name' you'll be searching all of
>the following:
>
>name -personal
>name corporate
>name - conference
>name - part
>name - affiliation
>name - role
>
>Or is it really a different set that you'd have in mind?   (Rhetorical
>question.)
>  
>
Ray, I don't see what it would be an either/or -- aren't you trying to 
develop search points that might correspond to indexes in a database? So 
some databases will combine all of their titles into a single *title* 
index -- that's actually quite common, although exactly what goes into 
the index can vary. It would make sense to define a MODS search point 
based on titleInfo found anywhere in the document, as well as the 
separate title indexes. (In the MELVYL system, we had to name the index 
that took just the 245 "main title" because "title" was a broader 
index.) Ditto with names, although names are a bit more complex because 
of their use in subjects: you can have a name index that includes all 
names, you can have indexes for personal v. corporate names, and you can 
separate names between creators and subjects. I don't see why an index 
point on name would have to include affiliation and role -- do the 
search points have to be strictly hierarchical? I have never seen names 
and affiliations combined into a single index.

>And the same question for 'subject'.
>
>For 'keyword' I'd be hard-pressed to make any correspondence to MODS. That
>doesn't at all mean that CQL shouldn't define a 'keyword' search point, it
>just means that it would fit somewhere else in the search architecture.
>  
>
Can't it correspond to *all MODS fields*? Or will CQL have a set of 
generic searches that can take care of this? (I'm a bit fuzzy on the 
purpose of the MODS search points.)

>--Ray
>
>
>  
>

-- 
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------