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  March 2011

CODE4LIB March 2011

Subject:

Re: dealing with Summon

From:

Karen Coombs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:45:18 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (79 lines)

I believe that there has been discussion of adding facets to SRU
responses in the past. It may even be part of the standard now I'm not
sure.

Facets in an SRU and/or Atom response would certainly be of interest
to OCLC. Another area where it might be nice to consider collaborating
is on a format for these records that is non-library developer
friendly but rich enough to provide the appropriate metadata. If
you've used WorldCat Search API you'll know that as a developer your
caught between the complexity of MARC and the simplicity (but lack of
richness) of Dublin Core/Atom/RSS.

Is there a middle ground metadata format that developers would prefer
to see output?

Karen

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Nagy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Godmar - to help answer some of your questions about the fields - I can
> help address those directly.  Though it would be interesting to hear
> experiences from others who are working from APIs to search systems such as
> Summon or others.
>
> In regards to the publication date - the Summon API has the "raw date"
> (which comes directly from the content provider), but we also provide a
> field with a microformat containing the parsed and cleaned date that Summon
> has generated.  We advise for you to use our parsed and cleaned date rather
> than the raw date.  The URL and URI fields are similar, the URL is the link
> that we have generated - the URI is what is provided by the content
> provider.  In your case, you appear to be referring to OPAC records, so the
> URI is the ToC that came from the 856$u field in your MARC records.  The URL
> is a link to the record in the OPAC.
>
> If you need more assistance around the fields that are available via Summon,
> I'd be happy to take this conversation off-list.
>
> I think an interesting conversation for the Code4Lib community would be
> around a standardized approach for an API that meets both the needs of the
> library developer and the product vendor.  I recall a brief chat I had with
> Annette about this same topic at a NISO conference in Boston a while back.
> For example, we have SRU/W, but that does not provide support for all of the
> features that a search engine would need (ie. facets, spelling corrections,
> recommendations, etc.).  Maybe a new standard is needed - or maybe extending
> an existing one would solve this need?  I'm all ears if you have any ideas.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Godmar Back <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> this is a comment/question about a particular discovery system
>> (Summon), but perhaps of more general interest. It's not intended as
>> flamebait or criticism of the vendor or people associated with it.
>>
>> When integrating Summon into LibX (which works quite nicely btw,
>> gratuitous screenshot is attached to this email) I found myself amazed
>> by the multitude of possible fields and combinations returned in the
>> resulting records. For instance, some records contains fields 'url'
>> (lower case), and/or 'URL' (upper case), and/or 'URI' (upper case).
>> Which one to display, and how?  For instance, some records contain an
>> OPAC URL in the 'url' field, and a ToC link in the URI field. Why?
>>
>> Similarly, the date associated with a record can come in a variety of
>> formats. Some are single-field (20080901), some are abbreviated
>> (200811), some are separated into year, month, date, etc.  Some
>> records have a mixture of those.
>>
>> My question is how do other adopters of Summon, or of emerging
>> discovery systems that provide direct access to their records in
>> general, deal with the roughness of the records being returned?  Are
>> there best practices in how to extract information from them, and in
>> how to prioritize relevant and weed out irrelevant or redundant
>> information?
>>
>>  - Godmar
>>
>

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 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
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