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  January 2016

CODE4LIB January 2016

Subject:

Re: searching metadata vs searching content

From:

Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 Jan 2016 11:38:47 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

A couple things come to mind. The first is that you'll need to experiment a
bit to get the behavior that works for your situation and your users --
common solutions that work great in other environments may not work for you.

The second is that if you haven't already, you should see if nested solr
documents aren't appropriate for your use case as that seems the right
structure for dealing with compound objects.

kyle

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Laura Buchholz <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks, Shaun--that overview was great. More info is better than less! I
> think this is the step that I want to know more about:
> In the case of a “compound object” you may need to have a script iterate
> over lots of separate content files and add them to the Solr document that
> represents a yearbook.
>
> Is is common to add all text content from the multi-page yearbook to one
> Solr field? So, the script would essentially extract and concatenate text
> from the multiple full-text files that the METS record points to and add it
> to one Solr field? That would make sense to me.
>
> However, when the user selects the item from a results set, they expect to
> be taken to the place within the item that contains their search term, or
> to not have to do much if any work to figure out where their search term
> is. At least, our users are accustomed to that behavior and expect the
> application to do that work for them. For example, a search for "ethel
> knotts" in OregonDigital
> <
> http://oregondigital.org/catalog/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_field=all_fields&q=ethel+knotts
> >
> gives
> some results, and a user can select the first item (Commencement Program,
> 1922) and can see the location pin for the file that contains their term. I
> thought some institutions automatically open the item to the first result,
> but now that I'm trying to find examples to cite, I'm not seeing that
> happen.
>
> Would this probably work by having the application do a second search
> (without the user needing to know) within the item after the user selects
> it? That search would be triggered by the IA bookreader, in the case of
> Oregon Digital, it seems. Or is something else happening? To get this
> functionality, the application would have to know which ranges of text
> belong to which files, and I'm curious about how that info would be stored
> and provided, whether in METS or Solr or something else.
>
> For better general context to these questions: I'm trying to understand how
> things are commonly done so I can better talk with our developer, who is in
> campus IT. We will be leaving ContentDM and going with a homegrown system
> that uses Solr among other components. We don't have any METS records, but
> when I think of structural metadata records, I think METS. If there's other
> ways of structuring metadata and content to provide the same functionality,
> that's good too.
>
> Thanks again for your help!
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Shaun D. Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Laura,
> > Great question.  Unfortunately, I think you’re going to be fairly limited
> > when it comes to having granular control over fields and facet indexing
> in
> > ContentDM (someone correct me if I’m wrong).
> >
> > But to answer your question about general steps involved with indexing
> the
> > metadata AND full text of a METS document…
> >
> > To have the most control over how your data is indexed, you will want to
> > use a search platform.  Apache Solr<http://lucene.apache.org/solr/> is
> > used in a majority of library-related software, so I’ll use that in my
> > examples, although there are several others.  Solr doesn’t have a concept
> > of “metadata” and “content”, just “fields" that you can use to search
> both.
> >
> > In the case of your METS data, you will need to first transform it into a
> > more simplified document (Solr XML) containing the fields that matter
> for a
> > particular search interface and are defined in the schema<
> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml>.  This transform step can be
> done
> > in any number of ways, but XSLT is fairly common.  To index the full-text
> > content that your METS document points to, you can build that into your
> > transform script/stylesheet, or you can run a separate script/process
> later
> > that updates the record with the full-text.  In the case of a “compound
> > object” you may need to have a script iterate over lots of separate
> content
> > files and add them to the Solr document that represents a yearbook.
> >
> > There are a few ways to add data to a solr index, but a common one in
> > library-land is to add (and update) records to the Solr index by POSTing
> > your freshly “transformed" data via HTTP (here’s the Solr quickstart
> > tutorial<http://lucene.apache.org/solr/quickstart.html>).
> >
> > Customizing your search results (weighting, stemming, rows per page,
> etc.)
> > can be handled in the Solr config file<
> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrConfigXml>.  For example, you can tweak
> > the weight/relevance of the query based on which fields it matches.
> >
> > When you query Solr over HTTP, it will return results in XML or JSON that
> > you can then render in a display or discovery interface. Blacklight<
> > http://projectblacklight.org/> is one example of a discovery interface.
> >
> > Sorry if I’ve covered stuff you already know.  There are lots of tools,
> > applications, and frameworks that will simplify the process (perhaps too
> > much in some cases!), but the best give you the most control over how you
> > index and retrieve your data.  I think that covers the basics and
> hopefully
> > answers your question.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Shaun
> > P.S. -  I’m not sure that even Solr will help you locate the Doyle Owl.
> ;)
> >
> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:30 PM, Laura Buchholz <[log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm trying to understand how digital library systems work when there is a
> > need to search both metadata and item text content (plain text/full
> text),
> > and when the item is made up of more than one file (so, think a digitized
> > multi-page yearbook or newspaper). I'm not looking for answers to a
> > specific problem, really, just looking to know what is the current state
> of
> > community practice.
> >
> > In our current system (ContentDM), the "full text" of something lives in
> > the metadata record, so it is indexed and searched along with the
> metadata,
> > and essentially treated as if it were metadata. (Correct?). This causes
> > problems in advanced searching and muddies the relationship between what
> is
> > typically a descriptive metadata record and the file that is associated
> > with the record. It doesn't seem like a great model for the average
> digital
> > library. True? I know the answer is "it depends", but humor me... :)
> >
> > If it isn't great, and there are better models, what are they? I was
> taught
> > METS in school, and based on that, I'd approach the metadata in a METS or
> > METS-like fashion. But I'm unclear on the steps from having a bunch of
> METS
> > records that include descriptive metadata and pointers to text files of
> the
> > OCR (we don't, but if we did...) to indexing and providing results to
> > users. I think another way of phrasing this question might be: how is the
> > full text of a compound object (in the sense of a digitized yearbook or
> > similar) typically indexed?
> >
> > The user requirements for this situation are essentially:
> > 1. User can search for something and get a list of results. If something
> > (let's say a pamphlet) appears in results based on a hit in full text,
> the
> > user selects the pamphlet which opens to the file (or page of the
> pamphlet)
> > that contains the text that was matched. This is pretty normal and does
> > work in our current system.
> > 2. In an advanced search, a user might search for a name in the "author"
> > field and a phrase in the "full text" field, and say they want both
> > conditions to be fulfilled. In our current system, this won't provide
> > results when it should, because the full text content is in one record
> and
> > the author's name is in another record, so the AND condition can't be
> met.
> > 3. Librarians can link description metadata records (DC in our case) to
> > particular files, sometimes one to one, sometimes many to one, sometimes
> > one to many.
> >
> > If this is too unclear, let me know...
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Laura Buchholz
> > Digital Projects Librarian
> > Reed College Library
> > 503-517-7629
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura Buchholz
> Digital Projects Librarian
> Reed College Library
> 503-517-7629
> [log in to unmask]
>

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 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