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:

"Loynes,Doug" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:12:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (164 lines)

Right. The observation had more to do with how to order the items within
a workset. The visitor was suggesting that a combination of popularity
and currency ought to be considered for determining display. So between
titles, you could show those titles that were more widely held first.
Then within titles, you could show the most recent edition of the title
at the top -- independent of the number of holdings associated with that
particular edition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Rochkind
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR

Can you clarify, were all the editions grouped together in a 'work
set', or were the two editions you speak of separated by interfiled
items that were editions of an entirely separate works?   Because
grouping them together as a work set seems the first step, right?
Once you've done this, you're already way ahead of the game of most
current systems. If the question is what order to put the items
_within_ a work set in----reverse chronological seems as good as any
(especially for fiction), but clearly different patrons are going to
have different needs (somebody might be looking for the oldest one,
or for a particular one), and popularity might make as many people
happy as chronology, it's hard to say.

But yeah, measuring popularity against all the editions of a work is
exactly what Thom was advising, and saying WorldCat did.  Seems to me
as long as your system knows which items are related to each other in
a work set, the battle is half done. Most systems now don't, of
course. Even WorldCat has trouble with it, as Thom's Don Quixote
example showed. (Of course, a real solution has to come from changes
to the cataloging data itself, but I'm not holding my breath.)

[I do love talking about this stuff myself, hope everyone's not
getting bored or annoyed at the discussion. If there's some place
else people are having discussions like this I should go instead,
please let me know.]

--Jonathan Rochkind

>Another observation (from another visitor visiting OCLC).
>
>This concerned how to display results for texts with multiple editions.
>We conducted a search in which the first title in the result set was
for
>the first edition of a work published in 1976.
>
>A more recent version of the title was released in 2002, but this
>version was buried further down the result set because there were fewer
>libraries who had actually acquired it compared to those that owned a
>copy of the first version.
>
>The visitor thought it probably made more sense, in this case, to rank
>the versions in reverse chronological order by publication date so that
>the most recent version was at the top of the list, irrespective of the
>number of holdings for an edition.
>
>Perhaps, then, popularity might be measured collectively against all of
>the editions of a title, rather than solely against holdings for
>particular editions of the same title.
>
>Doug Loynes
>Director, Content Inititives
>OCLC, Online Computer Library Center Inc.
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Hickey,Thom
>Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 10:49 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>
>A visitor here yesterday made an observation relevant to this
>discussion.  We were looking at the results of a search for "Don
>Quixote" in a yet-to-be-released version of FictionFinder.  The results
>were ranked by the number of libraries holding each 'work'.  Here's an
>abbreviated version of the results list:
>
>1. Don Quixote  / Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de
>2. History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews  / Fielding, Henry
>3. Morgenlandfahrt  / Hesse, Hermann
>4. The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote de la Mancha  / Cervantes
>Saavedra, Miguel de
>5. The Adventures of Don Quixote  / Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de
>6. The First Part of the Delightful History of the Most Ingenious
Knight
>Don Quixote of the Mancha  / Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de
>
>Because of some title variations, not all the Don Quixote's are brought
>together.  The visitor's point, though, was that #2 by Fielding really
>shouldn't be ranked higher than 4, 5, & 6, which seem more closely
>related to the "Don Quixote" search than Fielding's (even though Joseph
>Andrews is related to Don Quixote).
>
>Of course this might be just the right ordering for someone, but in
>general an ordering that takes into account where the search terms
>occurred in the records, in addition to how popular the works are,
>should work better than one that ignores that information.
>
>--Th
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Keith Jenkins
>Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:49 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question re: ranking and FRBR
>
>A very interesting discussion here... so I'll support its funding with
>my own two cents.
>
>I'd argue that search relevance is a product of two factors:
>   A. The overall popularity of an item
>   B. The appropriateness to a given query
>
>Both are approximate measures with their own difficulties, but a good
>search usually needs to focus on both (unless B is so restrictive that
>we don't need A).
>
>B is always going to be inhibited, to various degrees, by the limited
>nature of the user's input--usually just a couple of words.  If a user
>isn't very specific, then it is indeed quite difficult to determine
>what would be most relevant to that user.  That's where A can really
>help to sort a large number of results (although B can also help
>sorting).  I think Thom makes a good point here:
>
>On 4/10/06, Hickey,Thom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  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.
>
>In fact, it was this sort of "popularity score" logic that originally
>enabled Google to provide a search engine far better than what was
>possible using just term placement and frequency metrics for each
>document.  Word frequency is probably useless for our short
>bibliographic records that are often cataloged at differing levels of
>completeness.  But I think it could still be useful to give more
>weight to the title and primary author of a book.
>
>The basic mechanism of Google's PageRank algorithm is this: a link
>from page X to page Y is a vote by X for Y, and the number of votes
>for Y determines the power of Y's vote for other pages.  We could
>apply this to FRBR records, if we think of every FRBR relationship as
>a two-way link.  In this way, all the items link to the
>manifestations, which link to the expressions, which link to the
>works.  All manner of derivative works would also be linked to the
>original works.  So the most highly-related works get ranked the
>highest.  (For the algorithmically-minded, I found the article "XRANK:
>Ranked Keyword Search over XML Documents" helpful in understanding how
>the PageRank algorithm can be applied to other situations:
>http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cbotev/XRank.pdf )  It would be interesting
>to see how such an approach compares to a simple tally of "number of
>versions".
>
>-Keith

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

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