> 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.
When we talk about what is or what is not working well, it would be useful
to provide some evidence-driven data to support those statements. I'm "pro
FRBR" but if it's going to catch on, it's time to take FRBR past the world
of assumptions, both in terms of proof of concept and in terms of debates
about what kind of configuration does or does not work well.
Karen G. Schneider
[log in to unmask]