[Web4lib] Federated searching-general question re sub groupings

Peter Noerr pnoerr at MuseGlobal.com
Wed May 16 15:56:37 EDT 2007


Yuliya,
To be clear this is a 'sorting out' which can only be done between the federated search system ("fed system" from now on) supplier and the content provider. It is not something a library can set up, as it involves the two systems recognizing each other.

Having said that, it is always possible, and a good idea, for the library to tell the content provider that they are using a fed system. (This may be necessary as part of account set up anyway.) You may be able to get the content provider to take account of the extra sessions that arise through using a fed system, and increase the number of concurrent sessions (licenses).

The biggest problem with session (or seat or user or whatever) licenses is that most users just walk away from the PC when finished. They do not close the session. That means they are keeping hold of a license, even when they are in the cafeteria and another user is at the PC. All sessions time out eventually, and you may be able to have this changed by your content provider for direct access to their content search system. When you do use a fed system, it has its own timeouts. You can usually change these to suit your user population, but they are tricky to get "right". Most systems default to 15-20 minutes; the lowest we have seen is 3 minutes. When the fed system times out (or a new user logs on), it will close the content system sessions and release the licenses. So you are generally slightly better of with the fed system - specially if PCs are busy with searching - it closes sessions quicker. 

The simplest way a fed system can help here is to announce itself to the content system, whereupon content system relaxes the limits on sessions. This is particularly helpful if the user is searching a number of databases from one provider, which could otherwise use up one session license each. This mechanism is in place to some degree between the fed systems and a few content providers, but it is a pair-wise arrangement. When in place it works totally transparently to the user and pretty well, but is not common.

The more sophisticated solution, which is only being talked about, is for the federated search system to announce itself to the content system, then the session on the content system can be temporarily released between searches to be picked up again or closed on timeout. This involves sophisticated session management for both systems and some considerable work to ensure performance and security. Note that this only applies to content systems which are 'stateful' and maintain a user session until the user logs out, but this is the case for most of the subscription vendors.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Lef, Yuliya
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:52 PM
> To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general question 
> re sub groupings
> 
> Peter, 
> You've mentioned that concurrent license issue could be 
> sorted out with
> the provider. Could you be a bit more specific about that. I 
> don't think
> I understand how it could be sorted out. 
> 
> Thanks so much,
> 
> -----------------------------
> Yuliya Lef
> Virtual Library Coordinator
> Colorado Mountain College
> 333 Fiedler Ave. 
> P.O. Box 1414
> Dillon, CO 80435
> 970-468-5989 (phone)
> 970-468-5018 (fax)
> ylef at coloradomtn.edu
> http://www.coloradomtn.edu/library/ 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> > [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Peter Noerr
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:42 AM
> > To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> > Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general question 
> > re sub groupings
> > 
> > Aren't these all examples of "shouldn't" rather than "can't". 
> > Numeric DBs are just as useful as text ones if the data is 
> > properly fielded for display ("gold price=$700" vs. "price of 
> > gold is rising"). Any examples of pay-per-search? Number of 
> > concurrent licenses is a matter of session management, but I 
> > agree they should probably not be included, because of the 
> > prevalence of "just search everywhere" syndrome, unless the 
> > concurrent license issue is sorted out with the provider - 
> > which an increasing number are.
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> >  
> > > Well, there could be a number of reasons why certain 
> > databases can't be included in a federated search, or 
> > probably shouldn't be. Numeric databases, pay-per-search 
> > databases, and databases with a small number of concurrent 
> > users are examples.
> > > 
> > > --Steve
> > > ___________________________________________________
> > > Steve Cramer
> > > Librarian for Accounting, Apparel, Business, & Economics 
> > University of 
> > > North Carolina at Greensboro smcramer at uncg.edu, 
> 336-256-0346, AIM: 
> > > stevebizlib
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "Peter Noerr" <pnoerr at MuseGlobal.com> Sent by: 
> > > web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
> > > 05/10/2007 06:10 PM
> > > 
> > > To
> > > <web4lib at webjunction.org>
> > > cc
> > > 
> > > Subject
> > > RE: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general question re sub 
> groupings
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > One question and one observation:
> > > 
> > > Question:
> > > 
> > > Kathryn (in her ACRL presentation) and one other poster on 
> > this thread 
> > > have mentioned that certain databases "cannot be searched 
> > by federated 
> > > search" (or similar, more succinct phrasing). I am 
> > intrigued to know 
> > > what some examples of the databases are, or what the 
> > characteristics 
> > > are which make them unsearchable by a federated search engine.
> > > 
> > > Observation:
> > > We have noticed a growing trend in both the corporate and 
> > library use 
> > > of federated search towards the use of "subject verticals". The 
> > > reasons are all over the place, but one major theme is that 
> > users want 
> > > less, but better 'quality' results. If the user is already in a 
> > > subject specialized part of the web site, then the 
> > expectation seems 
> > > to be that they will get only very relevant material. And the 
> > > converse; if they are on the front page, they will get 
> all sorts of 
> > > stuff.
> > >  
> > > Also it is easier to consider moving a specialized search 
> > box out to 
> > > the place where the users are likely to be (a course web site, or 
> > > project collaboration page, for example) thus getting them 
> > to use the 
> > > library without having to be there. (This mixes with 
> > another thread, 
> > > but it does seem to be a trend to move specialist access 
> > out to where 
> > > people are
> > > working.)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Disclaimer:
> > > In the interests of full disclosure; MuseGlobal is a major 
> > commercial 
> > > developer and OEM vendor of search management software, 
> > which includes 
> > > federated search and results analysis components.
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > > 
> > > Dr Peter L Noerr
> > > CTO, MuseGlobal, Inc.
> > > 
> > > +1 801 208 1880
> > > www.museglobal.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org 
> > > > [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Kathryn 
> > > > Silberger
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:10 AM
> > > > To: web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > Subject: Fw: [Web4lib] Federated searching-general 
> > question re sub 
> > > > groupings
> > > > 
> > > > Lisa:
> > > > 
> > > >       I think you have asked some good questions.  I am 
> at Marist 
> > > > College and we have been using federated search since 
> > fall of 2005.
> > > > Our students
> > > > have been receptive and postive about it.  We have it front and 
> > > > center on our home page and we have seen article usage 
> sky rocket.
> > > > When we set it up
> > > > we tried to look at searching from the student's 
> perspective, and 
> > > > that led us to use the terminology of the Registrar's 
> > office.  Each 
> > > > of our federated groupings bear the name of a major 
> > awarded by the 
> > > > college.
> > > > That is the
> > > > terminology that guides their overall academic 
> experience and we 
> > > > have found that it works well for grouping databases into 
> > federated 
> > > > searches.  I agree with you that students don't want to have to 
> > > > consider lots
> > > of choices
> > > > before searching.  They live with a fair number of web 
> > destinations 
> > > > for broad life activities i.e. socializing, banking, travel, 
> > > > shopping  -- I believe they would like the library to 
> be a single 
> > > > destination.
> > > > 
> > > >       You are quite right about the clustering.  Students 
> > have been 
> > > > conditioned by other web searching experience to using 
> > clusters to 
> > > > filter search results.  (They want the movie, not the 
> > book at Amazon
> > > > - they filter
> > > > via cluster.)  About 80% - 90%  of the time the clustering will 
> > > > create a
> > > > very relevant subset.   Those proposed sub-grouping would 
> > > > have some general
> > > > academic databases and they would need to use the clustering 
> > > > regardless.  I have found that newspapers can present a 
> > problem in 
> > > > certain situations.  If a technical topic has been in the 
> > news for 
> > > > whatever reason, you can get the first page of results 
> > with too many 
> > > > newspaper articles.
> > > > 
> > > >              We gave a paper on federated searching at 
> ACRL this 
> > > > year.  We put up our paper, Powerpoint and a couple Flash 
> > demos at 
> > > > http://library.marist.edu/ACRL/Foxhunt_demo.html  .  You 
> > can see the 
> > > > clustering in each of the Flashes.
> > > > 
> > > >               Good luck.  I think you are on the right track.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Katy
> > > > 
> > > > Kathryn K. Silberger
> > > > Automation Resources Librarian
> > > > James A. Cannavino Library
> > > > Marist College
> > > > 3399 North Road
> > > > Poughkeepsie, NY  12601
> > > > Kathryn.Silberger at marist.edu
> > > > (845) 575-3000 x.2419
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >              "Pons, Lisa
> > > > 
> > > >              (ponslm)" 
> > > > 
> > > >              <PONSLM at UCMAIL.UC 
> > > >           To 
> > > >              .EDU>
> > > > <web4lib at webjunction.org> 
> > > >              Sent by: 
> > > >           cc 
> > > >              web4lib-bounces at w
> > > > 
> > > >              ebjunction.org 
> > > >      Subject 
> > > >                                        [Web4lib] Federated
> > > > 
> > > >                                        searching-general 
> > question re 
> > > > sub
> > > >              05/09/2007 10:18          groupings 
> > > > 
> > > >              AM
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I have a general question- sorry this is so long!
> > > > 
> > > > We're a few steps away from implementing our new 
> federated search 
> > > > tool.
> > > > It has been an interesting experience!
> > > > 
> > > > I have some questions regarding how this tool is seen 
> across your
> > > > institutions- that is, what is the vision for it's use?
> > > > 
> > > > For example, we have created our tool with 21 subject
> > > categories. Now,
> > > > some of  our subject specialists want to create sub 
> > categories, and 
> > > > choose their own databases to be searched , and put a 
> > search box on 
> > > > their subject guide pages that will only search within 
> their sub 
> > > > category.
> > > > 
> > > > For example, on our main federated page, we have Earth and 
> > > > Environmental Sciences which includes 10 databases to be 
> > searched. 
> > > > Now,
> > > the subject
> > > > specialist wants to create a sub-category for Geography 
> > and put the 
> > > > search box on her subject guide page. The category may or
> > > may not have
> > > > the same databases as the main earth and environmental 
> > sciences main 
> > > > category.
> > > > 
> > > > My question is, won't this confuse users?  Does this
> > > partially defeat
> > > > the purpose of a "federated search" by limiting the 
> > search to a very 
> > > > slender set of resources? We are using Serials 
> solutions central 
> > > > search, which has Vivisimo to cluser results- shouldn't that be 
> > > > enough.
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't this kind of library 1.0 thinking- that every 
> tool must be 
> > > > separate, and to find this, you must go there, to find 
> that, you 
> > > > must go somewhere else.
> > > > 
> > > > I need help here- if I am wrong I need to shut up about 
> > it with my 
> > > > colleagues, if I am write, I need help from all the experts
> > > out there
> > > > explaining why it is wrong.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web4lib mailing list
> > > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> 


More information about the Web4lib mailing list