Federated Search limitations
Today we got to see first hand the fragility associated with the current state of federated search technology. As a beta site for Innovative, we have been testing their 2006 general release software prior to general distribution and an update last night caused ports to fail, resources to be limited and screwed up the keyword index searching leading to wonky results. The problems were first noticed by our Technical Services group — but were seen later in LibraryFind — which searches our III catalog remotely. The problems introduced by the updated have essentially crippled outside interaction with our ILS — and while this will be quickly corrected by Innovative (I hope) — it does underline something that I’ve been aware of throughout this process of working on LibraryFind — that being our current model, the federated search model, is broken.
Why broken? Well, within the federated search model, there are just to many unknown variables that the system literately has no control. Start with query normalization. Targets will interpret user queries differently across the board meaning that a query at on target will search very different from a query at another. This leads to some difficulty as any tool created then must either code specifically for each target or provide a generalized search that normalizes to the most common target format. Likewise, as seen with our ILS, sometimes targets fail. And when they fail, there is really nothing that the system can do but report the error to the user.
So how do we fix the model? This is why LibraryFind is as much a harvester/indexer as it is a federated search tool. Our underlying belief while developing this program is that we want to harvest and index as much data as possible — so the tool is setup that way so that as vendors become more comfortable allowing their data to be harvested — we can take advantage of it. Of course, this can bring its own set of issues to the forefront — but I would gladly deal with database/indexing related issues over the current federated searching issues.
So what are we planning on doing with our ILS? Well, at this point, we will continue to remotely query our data — but we are in the process of looking at ways to simply harvest all our data and index it locally. The problem of course, is that this needs to be a process that is is in fairly real time — and I’m not sure if we will find and exporting method that can support those requirements, but we shall see.
–tr
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
Categories
- Access 2006
- ALA Midwinter 2007
- ALA Summer 2007
- Book
- C#
- Code4Lib 2007
- Code4Lib2008
- Conferences
- CONTENTdm
- Cycling
- Digital Libraries
- Dspace
- Education
- Family
- General Computing
- Innovative Interfaces
- Java
- LibraryFind
- MarcEdit
- Microsoft
- NWIUG 2006
- OAI
- OCLC
- Open Library
- OSCON 2006
- Patent Stupidity
- Programming
- rails
- Readex 2006
- ruby
- Running
- Simpsons
- Travel
- Uncategorized
- Wii
- Wikipedia
Archive
- 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
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 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