Simultaneous searching of multiple collections and resources through a single
interface (sometimes called "federated searching" or "one search"
solutions) would represent the biggest improvement in library usability since
the switch from card catalogs and printed indexes to online catalogs and databases.
Below is a short introduction to federated searching and where its going.
Simultaneous searching of multiple collections and resources through a single
interface (sometimes called "federated searching" or "one search"
solutions) would represent the biggest improvement in library usability since
the switch from card catalogs and printed indexes to online catalogs and databases.
Below is a short introduction to federated searching and where its going.
Once only discussed in theory (such systems require a fair amount of artificial
intelligence to negotiate disparate database’s unparalleled fields, commands,
and duplicate entries), barriers to this type of functionality have been chipped
away recently with such advancements as z39.50
standards adoption, adding hooks
to local holdings records in databases,
and electronic collection title list
aggregators.
Today federated searching tools have become a reality, although their functionality
and usability is comparable to that of the GUI
OPACs of the mid-1990s. A new category for LIS
Software > Federated Searching at the Open Directory Project lists some
of the businesses providing federated searching services, with some related
resources. Also, a blurb in the August 2003 American Libraries (p. 76) reviews
some of the federated searching exhibits at the recent ALA Annual conference
in Toronto.
Be on the lookout for federated searching systems to make their mainstream
debut in the coming years (but slowly, considering the capitalist
impediments that technology is faced with). Combined with digital
sharing efforts and personalization
projects it promises to help us move beyond the antiquated tools of the
profession (e.g., ask your cataloger to explain the relevance of main vs. added
entries in an online catalog) to the [digital] library of the future.
OhioLINK etc
I reckon OhioLINK is a good example of said technology. They’ve got a few experiments running that search across multiple Dbs as well. I remember This as the first thing I had read about it, at the time it seemed like such a pipe dream. All this is pretty cool, but….
Is this REALLY what people want? Sure, we can see the benefits, but are end users really interested in such things? Reminds me of Merlot, a great resource, but one that I imagine isn’t used by students much, which is sad.
I have no answers to these questions, I just don’t know what people want from libraries.
Lowest common
When using this type of functionality, even within one database family (like searching multiple databases in FirstSearch), the searcher has fewer or no power options because certain fields or options will not be available. Controlled vocabulary may not be searchable, for instance, or it’s relegated to a keyword type search. Limits may not be available.
Since the metadata underneath is varied, the searching becomes more difficult. It is not viable to force everyone who wants to play to use one set of standards (MARC, Dublin Core, FGDC, etc.) for their metadata. Where overlap exists, on title or author for instance, federated searching works (mostly; what about authority control on authors?). A quality federated search will decipher the metadata accurately and leverage information from the item itself as well.
Federated searching is a noble concept, because when it functions properly, users will be pleased with the results. When federated searching performs poorly, on the other hand, searchers may not know what they are missing.
What people want …
What do people want? Someone (I think Roy Tennant) has said: “Librarians like searching; users like Finding” (or something like that).
What users want is to be able to find stuff. They don’t care how and they want to do it with the least fuss. They may be missing out at some level, but usually they are happy so long as they find something useful to their cause.
Which of course is why Google is so successful. And isn’t it amazing how often Google throws up just exactly what you need, from a (seemingly) simple and limited search option? Something to ponder…
Boston Public Library’s search engine.
Our Boston Public Library’s search engine at
http://www.bpl.org/search
does not work properly for searches with terms that have more than one word.