On 18 May 2010 15:52, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What terms do you suggest, Mike?
"First, do no harm."
The current situation with federated/meta/broadcast search is
certainly unfortunate; but introducing yet a fourth term to mean the
same thing is not going to make things better.
> I think we're doomed no matter what [...]
I think you should have finished your message there :-)
> [...] with these, after certain communities
> started to use "federated search" and "metasearch" in directly opposite
> ways.
What communities? Maybe we on the CODE4LIB list collectively carry
enough weight that we could take the most prevalent meanings and
propagate them?
> I also was told recently that what is called an "accordion" in English is
> called a "bandoneon" in Spanish, and what is called a "accordeon" in Spanish
> is called a "bandoneon" in English.
For what it's worth, and I say this as a fully paid-up Englishman, I
have never heard of a bandoneon.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Mike Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On 18 May 2010 15:24, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There is no synchronous operation in SRU.
>>>
>>> As for federated search .
>>>
>>> To digress a moment, you may recall -- I believe it was on this list --
>>> there was discussion (maybe a year ago?) of what that even means and
>>> whether
>>> it is the same or differs from metasearch, whatever that means. That
>>> discussion was inconclusive. Anyway, earlier drafts of SRU 2.0 describe
>>> a
>>> metasearch model. Recently, the committee decided that the terms
>>> "metasearch" and "federated search" are undefined jargon. We now choose
>>> to
>>> call it "multi-server search".
>>>
>>
>> Way to go. Introducting yet ANOTHER synonym can only help!
>>
>> (And don't forget "broadcast search".)
>>
>>
>
>
|
