I think the traditional browse which I _think_ I understand what Benhard
means, IS important -- but largely because our data was _created_ for
such a browse. As in Bernhard's phone book example, our data was
created with a paper (card or bound) catalog in bound, where this was
the ONLY method of access. So our headings are constructed assuming they
will be used in such a system.
So with what we've got, browse is important. In an ideal world, if we
could magically change our metadata to be different, I'm not sure that
this traditional kind of browse would be an optimal interface. But
there are other kinds of browse that would be important -- like a
virtual 'shelf browse' that let you see actual individual items (not
just a list of headings you have to click on!) for a given call number
range.
In any event, I don't think there is anything problematic about using
Lucene, SOLR, or rdbms systems to provide any of these kinds of browses.
It can be done. Those particular technologies don't neccesarily put any
barriers in the way to doing it. It's not neccesarily a trivial exersize
though -- as shown by how horribly even many of our commercial ILSs
handle any kind of browse. If it's not there in open source products, I
think it's not from a lack of desire, but just because it's a bit tricky
to get it to work right and not everyone's gotten to it yet.
Jonathan
Bernhard Eversberg wrote:
> Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
>> No, that's not what I said. Browsing is a thing for which there is not
>> set answer.
>>
> I want the majority opinion, not a set answer.
> So many OPACs don't have any true browsing, so the designers must have
> had a solid opinion. And as I said, I found many don't even really know
> what I mean when I say "browsing". They will hardly vote AYE.
>
> > This is a scaling and selection issue
>
>> of what makes sense in the context given.
>>
>>
> That's true for any OPAC function at all, so it's tautologic.
>
> So there seems to _be_ a NAY majority already. Even Kent Fitch's
> browsing seems to have been done without confidence in its usefulness,
> since there isn't anything about it in the Help, you dont find out
> what "Browse" can or cannot do.
>
> B.Eversberg
>
>
Received on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 12:19:10 EDT