 |
 |
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".) >> >> > >