On 6/21/06, Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I just had a shower (on my way to bed), but had a thought;
>
> On 6/21/06, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> > Are these indexes really browsable, up and down (and displaying
> > not just lines that somehow match the user's input but beyond that
> > as far as they want to go?)?
>
> We use the indexes to cluster information, so in that sense, you can
> browse around in as many clusters as you possibly can want (meaning
> more spaces than there are indexes). If you're referring to subject
> browsing, no we don't really do that because it hasn't appeared that
> we need to; clustering seems to do that for us in the sense that the
> semantics of the search you just performed is right there on screen.
> Although, your subjects and titles and whatsnot is there as clusters,
> and you're free to explore these if you like. I have another
> application where you can browse around in a big thesaurus and see
> what items it finds at each term. It works really well, so do we need
> any other way? Let's find out through testing.
>
> > All of that, besides being tied in with one language, will not do for
> > personal or corporate names.
>
> Of course it does; statistical error pruning is exactly what Google
> does to give suggestions. But more importantly; what is the definition
> of what "will do"? We certainly don't design librarian systems; that's
> how most ILS and OPACS are right now, with fielded searching and
> knowledge of LCSH and Dewey and what you'll find in a MARC 245
> subfield c and so forth. We're dealing with "most people" here, and
> for those I think statistical error pruning will do just dandy. But if
> you have another important user-group to which this "won't do", then
> do tell.
>
> > What any plain decent good enough catalog
> > should display
>
> Should do or actually do?
>
> > is something like this (the arrows pointing to the
> > authority spelling, where it has been linked, in this case different
> > from LC's):
>
> Hmm, yes, authority records are well and fine as long as they are
> maintained, but I challenge you to find any books that I've been
> involved in using these records using any of my spelling varieties
> (there aren't that many though :) ; I'm too small and insignificant
> and too new to even have such a thing. There needs to be a balance
> here, somewhere between doing nothing and doing all, for those who are
> truly known and those who are in the margins. We're trying very hard
> to reach some middle ground, which seems to be still far above the
> average OPAC of today.
>
> > 17 shostrom, everett l
> > 2 shotam, nirmala puru -> puru shotam, nirmala
> > 1 shotbolt, charles r
> > 1 shoter, l
>
> I'll add one for you ; sjostakovitsj, norwegian spelling. There's only
> so much that makes sense to put into these files, and I seriously
> believe that these things need to go in the "analysis" folder more
> than hand-spun metadata. But that's just me; there's others out there
> with different answers.
Just a quick interjection/commercial-note:
http://dev.gapines.org/opac/en-US/skin/default/xml/mresult.xml?t=sjostakovitsj&tp=author
Notice the link under "You may also want to try these related
searches" -- authority files /can/ be up to date, and /can/ be made
useful.
>
> > If this looks too exotic, try find Stephen Hawking's works in
> > LibraryThing. [clue: try Hawkin, Hawkins, Hawkings as well]
>
> This is the same reason people have trouble with tagging and other
> means of classification. It's nothing new, nor is it easily solved,
> not even with authority records. I think we need to be a bit pragmatic
> with these things, and we experiement with letting clusters tell you
> more about what you've found. Maybe, just maybe, the idea of authority
> records could be made redundant through clever design. Who knows?
>
> Now I'm certainly not very fond of second-guessing what is "good
> enough", especially not for our users. Test it out and see if it is
> true instead. If rigid authority record use constitutes a want in less
> than 1% of users, is it still something we should pursue?
>
> I'm all for testing these things instead of saying "any good system
> must do X, Y and Z"; how else could you know?
>
>
> Alex
> --
> "Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
> - Frank Herbert
> __ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
>
--
Mike Rylander
mrylander_at_gmail.com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org
Received on Wed Jun 21 2006 - 10:29:19 EDT