LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  January 2007

CODE4LIB January 2007

Subject:

Re: Solr indexing -- why XSL is the wrong choice

From:

Casey Durfee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:20:54 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (89 lines)

 
I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded to the 'light' side as well and I'm looking forward to learning more about your project as well, which is much more mature than mine at this point ... I'm just interested in something that works and is easily tweakable.  I don't hold a lot of hope that a one-size-fits-all XSL transformation could ever be put together -- I think there are too many minor but significant variations in how people catalog stuff and how different ILSes stick things like item data in the MARC record.  I could be wrong about that though.
 
Maybe I've just been traumatized by having to deal with so many bad uses of XSL featuring multiple 250KB+ stylesheets with extension functions spaghetti'd throughout that I'm disinclined to use it even when it is the best and simplest tool for the job.  I'd love to see how you're getting around the somewhat convoluted back and forth between XSL and extension functions that has been my experience.
 
As far as performance goes, if you've got an ILS that allows you to dump all the MARC records in the system at once but not a way to incrementally get all the MARC records that have changed since you last updated the indexes, then indexing performance is very important -- if you can reindex all your records in an hour or two it makes it feasible to just rebuild your indexes from scratch every night from 3-4 AM where it wouldn't be if it takes 8 hours.  It also makes the cost of fine-tuning your indexes much lower.
 
Just for some clarification, in my system, you don't need to know a thing about programming or XML at all or ever look at a single line of code to change how an index is created.    There is just one configuration file (in the future this may all be stored in a database and accessible via Django's automatic web admin interface but for now it's just a text file) and the core indexing code is never modified at all.  The three lines in the config file that define the title index look something like this:
 
title.type = single
title.marcMap = 245$ab,246$ab,240$a
title.stripTrailingPunctuation = 1
 
(The .type argument says that it is not a repeated field in Solr, the .marcMap field dictates how the title data is extracted and .stripTrailingPunctuation does what it sounds like)
 
Now say you want to include the n subfields in there as well.  Well, you just change that one line in that one config file to:

title.marcMap = 245$abn,246$abn,240$an
 
Now say you want to introduce a new index in Solr.  Well, you just add a couple of new lines to the config file, run a little script that automatically generates the Solr schema (though I still have a ton of work to do on that piece of it), reindex, and you're done.   
 
Defining an index of the language of the material ("English", "Swahili", etc.) would look like:
 
language.type= singleTranslation
language.marcMap = 008/35:38
language.translationMap = LANGUAGE_CODING_MAP
 
(LANGUAGE_CODING_MAP is a hash map of the three letter LoC language codes, for example 'eng' => 'English' )
 
You can handle fields with processors (little bits of code) if you need something more sophisticated than a MARC map or a translation.  The processor I have for the common-sense format of the item (DVD, Book on CD, eMusic -- the kind of thing that is very annoying to get out of a MARC record but very important to patrons) is extremely complex and  would be unbelievably tedious to replicate in XSL.   Now, say somebody writes a better processor (which could theoretically be written in any JVM language - java, jruby, jython, javascript (rhino), etc.).  To use it would be as simple as changing one line in a configuration file and dropping the processor code in a particular spot.  
 
 
--Casey

>>> [log in to unmask] 1/19/2007 2:35 PM >>>
Casey, we have had great successes with XSL for MARCXML to SOLR, so I
can't agree to everything you are saying.  However I anxiously await
your presentation on your successes with SOLR so you can persuade me to
the dark side :)

Casey Durfee wrote:
>
I agree with your argument of abstracting your programming from your
data so that a non-tech-savvy librarian could modify the solr settings.
But if you modify the solr settings, you need to (at this point)
reimport all of your data which mean that you either have to change your
XSLT or your transformation application.  I personally feel that a
less-tech savvy individual can pickup XSLT easier than coding java.
Maybe I am understanding you incorrectly though.
>
> 3) Ease of programming.
>
> a) Heavy-duty string manipulation is a pain in pure XSLT.  To index MARC records have to do normalization on dates and names and you probably want to do some translation between MARC codes and their meanings (for the audience & language codes, for instance).  Is it doable?  Yes, especially if you use XSL extension functions.  But if you're going to have huge chunks of your logic buried in extension functions, why not go whole hog and do it all outside of XSLT, instead of having half your programming logic in an extension function and half in the XSLT itself?
>
I can see your argument for this, however I like to abstract my layers
of applications as mentioned above.  So in this aspect, I have a script
the runs the XSLT.  Inside the script is also some logic that the XSLT
refers back to for the manipulation and massaging of the data.  I can
keep all XML related transformation logic in my XSL and all of my coding
logic in my script.  Again, I think it boils down to preference.
>
> b) Using XSLT makes object-oriented programming with your data harder.
That's a bold statement.
>   Your indexer should be able to give you a nice object representation of a record (so you can use that object representation within other code).  If you go the XSLT route, you'd have to parse the MARC record, transform it to your Solr record XML format, then parse that XML and map the XML to an object.  If you avoid XSLT, you just parse the MARC record and transform it to an object programmatically (with the object having a method to print itself out as a Solr XML record).
>
> Honestly, all this talk of using XSLT for indexing MARC records reminds me of that guy who rode across the United States on a riding lawnmower.  I am looking forward to there being a standard, well-tested MARC record indexer for Solr (and would be excited to contribute to such a project), but I don't think that XSL is the right tool to use.
>
I can agree with your OO style of design in which you have one Record
object that is responsible for all of the work (converting to solr, and
back again) but again, this all seems to be based on preference.
I have an import script that is completely independent of our SOLR
libraries.  I have a main SOLR class that is responsible for interacting
with SOLR and as well creating Record objects (using XSLT of course).

Also, I am sure there are plenty of folks attending the SOLR
preconference who are not experienced software developers and may have
an easier time developing some XSLT stylesheets -- and an even easier
time if we come up with a standard xslt doc for marcxml -> solr -- than
learning how to do what you are describing so they can create a nice
search engine for their catalog.

I feel that your arguments for not using XSLT are based on preference
and do not lend toward a "better" design at this point.

But I love to be proved wrong ... Im currently finishing up my masters
in Computer Science/Software Engineering  ... so I love these kinds of
debates since they are all thats on my head at the moment.

Andrew

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
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
June 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
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager