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  April 2006

CODE4LIB April 2006

Subject:

Re: Question re: ranking and FRBR

From:

Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:00:30 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (216 lines)

>not the right approach. And yet...I wish I could explain why it seems as
>though the clustering can tell us something.

Well, what is it you think the clustering can tell you something
_about_?  This is an interesting topic to me.

I'm not sure the clustering can tell you anything about relevance to
the user. I'm not seeing it. I mean, the number of items that are
members of a FRBR work set really just indicates how many 'versions'
(to be imprecise) of that work exist. But the number of 'versions' of
a work that exist doesn't really predict how likely that work (or any
of it's versions) is to be of interest to a user, does it?  But maybe
you're thinking of something I'm missing, I'm curious what you're
thinking about.

I am a big fan of grouping items into FRBR work sets however, for
other reasons (which may or may not be obvious). But exactly how this
should be done, under what control of the user, is still an open
question to some extent (that will only be answered after more
systems try and it experiment with it).

I wonder---if more than one item in the FRBR work set has an
especially high relevancy ranking (I don't know what would qualify as
'especially high')---if more than one of those items should in fact
be "brought to the top", and hilighted on the first-level display?
Instead of making the user "click through" to see them?  But I'm
assuming you hide members of a FRBR work grouping behind a single
heading on the first level results---you may not do this, you may
just group them adjacently but put all of them on the first level
result list? There are a million ways to do these things.

And, as Thom mentions, it's also something of an open question as to
what the right way to do relevancy rankings based on bib records is
anyway (or if there even is a right way).

So many questions. But that's what makes it interesting. I am very
interested in checking out the system you end up with, Colleen, it
sounds interesting. If it's publically internet accessible, please do
share it with us when there's something interesting to look at.

--Jonathan



>--Colleen
>
>David Walker wrote:
>
>>The only tricky thing about this with WorldCat, though, is that you have
>>such a large mix of libraries.
>>
>>In my own searching on WorldCat, I've noticed that a fair amount of
>>fiction and non-scholarly works appear near the top of results because
>>the public libraries are skewing the holdings of those titles.
>>
>>Not a bad thing in itself, if that's what I'm looking for, but our
>>students are looking for scholarly works (and still learning to
>>distinguish scholarly from not), so would be nice in our particular
>>context to limit only to academic libraries that own the title.
>>
>>--Dave
>>
>>=========================
>>David Walker
>>Web Development Librarian
>>Library, Cal State San Marcos
>>760-750-4379
>>http://public.csusm.edu/dwalker
>>=========================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Hickey,Thom
>>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:52 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>>
>>I'd agree with this.
>>
>>Actually, though, 'relevancy' ranking based on where terms occur in the
>>record and how many times they occur is of minor help compared to some
>>sort of popularity score.  WorldCat holdings work fairly well for that,
>>as should circulation data.  The primary example of this sort of ranking
>>is the web search engines where ranking is based primarily on word
>>proximity and links.
>>
>>--Th
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>Jonathan Rochkind
>>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:16 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>>
>>When you are ranking on number of holdings like OCLC is, a straight
>>sum makes sense to me---the sum of all libraries holding copies of
>>any manifestation of the FRBR work is indeed the sum of the holdings
>>for all the records in the FRBR work set. Of course.
>>
>>If you're doing relavancy rankings instead though, a straight sum
>>makes less sense. A relevancy ranking isn't really amenable to being
>>summed. The sum of the relevancy rankings for various
>>manifestations/expressions is not probably not a valid indicator of
>>how relevant the work is to the user, right?  And if you did it this
>>way, it would tend to make the most _voluminous_ work always come out
>>first as the most 'relevant', which isn't quite right.---This isn't
>>quite the same problem as OCLC's having the bible come out on
>>top---since OCLC is ranking by holdings, it's exactly right to have
>>the bible come out on top, the Bible is indeed surely one of the
>>(#1?) most held works, so it's quite right for it to be on top. But
>>the bible isn't always going to be the most relevant result for a
>>user, just because it's the most voluminous!  Summing is going to
>>mess up your relevancy rankings.
>>
>>Just using the maximum relevancy ranking from the work set seems
>>acceptable to me--the work's relevancy to the user is indicated by
>>the most relevant manifestation in the set.  There might be a better
>>way to do it (Is a work with four manifestations with a relevancy
>>ranking .7 more relevant than a work with just one manifestation with
>>a ranking of .9?  I don't think it probably is, actually; I think
>>just taking the maximum should work fine. But it depends on the
>>relevancy algorithm maybe.). I don't think I'm enough of a
>>mathematician to understand the point of the log of the sum, though,
>>hmm.
>>
>>--Jonathan
>>
>>At 2:38 PM -0400 4/10/06, Hickey,Thom wrote:
>>
>>>We're doing straight sums of the holdings of all the manifestations in
>>>the work.  It's hard for me to see the need to discount holdings in
>>>multiple manifestations.  It does mean that 'bible' tends to come to
>>>
>>the
>>
>>>top for many searches, but that's about the only work-set I see coming
>>>up unexpectedly to the top.
>>>
>>>If we had circulation data we'd certainly factor that in (or maybe just
>>>use it if it was comprehensive enough).
>>>
>>>--Th
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>Colleen Whitney
>>>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:04 PM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>>>
>>>Thanks...is it just a straight sum, Thom?
>>>
>>>--C
>>>
>>>Hickey,Thom wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here at OCLC we're ranking based on the holdings of all the records in
>>>>the retrieved work set.  Seems to work pretty well.
>>>>
>>>>--Th
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>>>
>>Of
>>
>>>>Colleen Whitney
>>>>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 1:06 PM
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>Subject: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>>>>
>>>>Hello all,
>>>>
>>>>Here's a question for anyone who has been thinking about or working
>>>>
>>>with
>>>
>>>>FRBR for creating record groupings for display.  (Perhaps others have
>>>>already discussed or addressed this...in which case I'd be happy to
>>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>a pointer to resources that are already out there.)
>>>>
>>>>In a retrieval environment that presents ranked results (ranked by
>>>>record content, optionally boosted by circulation and/or holdings),
>>>>
>>how
>>
>>>>could/should FRBR-like record groupings be factored into ranking?
>>>>Several approaches have been discussed here:
>>>>- Rank the results using the score from the highest-scoring record
>>>>
>>in
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>group
>>>>- Use the sum of scores of documents in a group (this seems to me to
>>>>place too much weight on the group)
>>>>- Use the log of the sum of the scores of documents in a group
>>>>
>>>>I'd be very interested in knowing whether others have already been
>>>>thinking about this....
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>--Colleen Whitney

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

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