 |
 |
Agree. When you step outside libraryland and into corporate/enterprise IT (thinking Autonomy, FAST, etc.) then "federated search" is often used to refer to aggregated local indexing of distinct databases. Jason -- Jason Stirnaman Digital Projects Librarian/School of Medicine Support A.R. Dykes Library, University of Kansas Medical Center [log in to unmask] 913-588-7319 >>> On 4/21/2009 at 12:56 PM, in message <[log in to unmask]>, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I think I like your term "aggregated index" even better than "local > index", thanks Peter. You're right that "local" can be confusing as far > as "local to WHAT". > > So that's my new choice of terminology with the highest chance of being > understood and least chance of being misconstrued: "broadcast search" > vs. "aggregated index". > > As we've discovered in this thread, if you say "federated search" > without qualification, different people _will_ have different ideas of > what you're talking about, as apparently the phrase has been > historically used differently by different people/communities. > > I think "broadcast search" and "aggregated index" are specific enough > that it would be harder for reasonable people to misconstrue -- and > don't (yet?) have a history of being used to refer to different things > by different people. So it's what I'm going to use. > > Jonathan > > Peter Noerr wrote: >> >From one of the Federated Search vendor's perspective... >> >> It seems in the broader web world we in the library world have lost > "metasearch". That has become the province of those systems (mamma, dogpile, > etc.) which search the big web search engines (G,Y,M, etc.) primarily for > shoppers and travelers (kayak, mobissimo, etc.) and so on. One of the > original differences between these engines and the library/information world > ones was that they presented results by Source - not combined. This is still > evident in a fashion in the travel sites where you can start multiple search > sessions on the individual sites. >> >> We use "Federated Search" for what we do in the library/information space. > It equates directly to Jonathan's Broadcast Search which was the original > term I used when talking about it about 10 years ago. Broadcast is more > descriptive, and I prefer it, but it seems an uphill struggle to get it > accepted. >> >> Fed Search has the problem of Ray's definition of Federated, to mean "a > bunch of things brought together". It can be broadcast search (real time > searching of remote Sources and aggregation of a virtual result set), or > searching of a local (to the searcher) index which is composed of material > federated from multiple Sources at some previous time. We tend to use the > term "Aggregate Index" for this (and for the Summon-type index) Mixed content > is almost a given, so that is not an issue. And Federated Search systems have > to undertake in real time the normalization and other tasks that Summon will > be (presumably) putting into its aggregate index. >> >> A problem in terminology we come across is the use of "local" (notice my > careful caveat in its use above). It is used to mean local to the searcher > (as in the aggregate/meta index above), or it is used to mean local to the > original documents (i.e. at the native Source). >> >> I can't imagine this has done more than confirm that there is no agreed > terminology - which we sort of all knew. So we just do a lot of explaining - > with pictures - to people. >> >> Peter Noerr >> >> >> Dr Peter Noerr >> CTO, MuseGlobal, Inc. >> >> +1 415 896 6873 (office) >> +1 415 793 6547 (mobile) >> www.museglobal.com >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >>> Jonathan Rochkind >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 08:59 >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Serials Solutions Summon >>> >>> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: >>> >>>> Leaving aside metasearch and broadcast search (terms invented more >>>> >>> recently) >>> >>>> it is a shame if "federated" has really lost its distinction >>>> from"distributed". Historically, a federated database is one that >>>> integrates multiple (autonomous) databases so it is in effect a >>>> >>> virtual >>> >>>> distributed database, though a single database. I don't think >>>> >>> that's a >>> >>>> hard concept and I don't think it is a trivial distinction. >>>> >>>> >>> For at least 10 years vendors in the library market have been selling >>> us >>> products called "federated search" which are in fact >>> distributed/broadcast search products. >>> >>> If you want to reclaim the term "federated" to mean a local index, I >>> think you have a losing battle in front of you. >>> >>> So I'm sticking with "broadcast search" and "local index". Sometimes >>> you need to use terms invented more recently when the older terms have >>> been used ambiguously or contradictorily. To me, understanding the two >>> different techniques and their differences is more important than the >>> terminology -- it's just important that the terminology be understood. >>> >> >>