[Web4lib] Does anyone need a federated OPAC search?

Tue Mar 23 23:09:25 EDT 2010

Hi Ross, 

I found no rant here (maybe I didn't look hard enough:-).

Some comments are interspersed in your text below.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Singer [mailto:rossfsinger at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 19:27
> To: Peter Noerr
> Cc: Tim Spalding; web4lib at webjunction.org
> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Does anyone need a federated OPAC search?
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Peter Noerr <pnoerr at museglobal.com> wrote:
> > Ross,
> >
> > Can you expound a bit on the last paragraph - about how awful the
> commercial fed search systems are - and the lack of imagination (mostly the
> lack of imagination)?
> >
> Those are actually two different thoughts:  failings of federated
> search systems are inherent in the environment they exist in.  No
> amount of imagination can create a reality where all fed. search
> targets return relevant, easily merge-able, timely results
> consistently both in service and metadata.
<PLN: Indeed, we try hard to get what we can, but fed search is hostage to the vagaries of the data on the Sources, and their capabilities. So, of course, are the users of those Sources in native mode. It just shows more obviously when the FS engine brings everything together side-by-side. However, it is actually quite good on "timely", less so on "merge-able" and "relevant" but still not at all unusable./>
> 
> That said, I think fed. search services have value -- they serve a
> space that needs to be  addressed (it is the only way to search many
> of these resources at the same time) and need to be flexible enough to
> deal with the inconsistencies between providers.
> 
> Where the failure of imagination lies, in my mind, is that we're
> talking about controlled and known sources -- sources that we can
> harvest and manipulate the data in any way we wish for very specific
> services:  services much more personal than discovery.  It is not a
> failure of any piece of technology:  these are solutions that require
> humans thinking about what the humans they are trying to help actually
> need and working with their colleagues at other organizations to help
> facilitate these services.
<PLN: Are you suggesting that FS fails at the very personal functionality level, where the FS systems are distant and static, or that there has not been enough thought about the usefulness (or otherwise) of the FS capabilities put into their design? Or something else? />
> 
> Another project I had while at Georgia Tech was the Umlaut, an
> application that served as an interface to OpenURL link resolvers.  It
> did several things (most of which are out of scope for this thread),
> but one of its design principles (although it never made it into the
> production implementation at GaTech or the now main development
> contributor, Johns Hopkins) was to allow users to add all of their
> affiliations:  if they were a joint student at other institution (such
> as Emory) or their public library, or they had alumni borrowing
> privileges from their undergraduate school or if they place they
> worked had a corporate library.  The Umlaut's concept of "appropriate
> copy" wasn't placed with any institution, but with the users
> themselves, since it was quite likely the collection(s) they had
> access to were a superset of any one library and it was naive (and
> arrogant) for the library to think that they should assume they hold
> all of the keys to appropriate copy.
<PLN: A FS equivalent of that is, I think, where the user has access to Sources in addition to those of the institution, and wishes their interface in the institutional system to reflect this and search them. Being able to work with a system that is at least part way towards the way you want to work, and certainly covers the topics you are interested in, should be a rather fundamental design principle. Sometimes it gets overwhelmed by "who is going to look after this" issues, but it should be there for those who will take charge. />
> 
> Ironically, I was never even able to set up a prototype with my own
> credentials, since my public library had no machine-readable way to
> access it.
> 
> So I hope that's not a rant - but understand that I hardly hold
> federated search products responsible for their downsides, although I
> do hold the marketing and sales departments accountable for billing
> them as something they're not.
<PLN: I'm afraid I can take little responsibility for marketing or sales departments. To a person they espouse their product, whatever it is, as the-next-big-thing to solve the world's problems - it is the nature of the beast./>
> 
> -Ross.
> 
> > [For some reason this thread of emails is arriving in reverse order (and
> I still haven't got the 1:15PM from Tim from which you snip), so I am
> asking this a bit blind, as it may have been covered already.]
> >
> > I'm not asking for a rant, but some of the points where you think they/we
> (yes I'm one) fail most miserably - in this particular area.
> >
> > Peter Noerr
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:web4lib-
> >> bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Ross Singer
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:25
> >> To: Tim Spalding
> >> Cc: web4lib at webjunction.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Does anyone need a federated OPAC search?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I'm getting a lot of replies, but they're from big institutions with
> >> > big needs and, usually, existing systems. It's obvious where the
> >> > "money" is at, but it's also a solved problem. There are commercial
> >> > solutions and, as Jeremy Frumkin pointed out to me, there is a
> >> > high-quality open source solution for institutions with Z39.50
> >> > targets, LibraryFind from Oregon State (http://libraryfind.org).
> >> >
> >> There are scores of libraries (even large libraries -- Atlanta-Fulton
> >> County Public Library, for example) that either don't have Z39.50
> >> servers or don't expose them for whatever reason.
> >>
> >> I think the need is there at all levels - even where the "solved
> >> problem" is supposedly at, it's not.  They just target the "obvious",
> >> "political" and "easy" targets.
> >>
> >> I feel there's a huge failure of imagination in this space, and the
> >> "big money" federated search systems (and their general awfulness)
> >> only exacerbates this by supposedly packaging an answer.
> >>
> >> -Ross.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Web4lib mailing list
> >> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> >> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> >