Comments on: Federated Search: long story & short morals http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/ Health Information | Geekery Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:49:12 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: David Rothman http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-121 David Rothman Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:14:15 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/#comment-121 I maintain: Book Burro is federated search, and is wholly without suckage. Sans suckitude, as it were. I maintain: Book Burro is federated search, and is wholly without suckage. Sans suckitude, as it were.

]]> By: Woody http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Woody Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:16:10 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/#comment-119 Aye aye. Univeral abstractions are usually absurd. And so is every single federated search for databases I have yet encountered! The challenge stands: Convince me, someone, that all federated searching does not suck. And I can even alter it a bit to say: Convince me, someone, that ANY federated searching does not suck. And thank you. W Aye aye.

Univeral abstractions are usually absurd. And so is every single federated search for databases I have yet encountered! The challenge stands: Convince me, someone, that all federated searching does not suck. And I can even alter it a bit to say: Convince me, someone, that ANY federated searching does not suck.

And thank you.
W

]]> By: David Rothman http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-118 David Rothman Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:54:49 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/#comment-118 Woody, A part of the problem I have with your line of reasoning is the very fact that you blow it out into a universal abstraction. It would be downright silly to expect a federated search tool to cross all databases. Federated search is best utilized in databases of similar types of data, when the absence of a controlled vocabulary can be compensated for with skillfully-designed code conversions to negotiate the differences. Silly example: If you\'ve got three databases of a similar content type from three different vendors (lets say they all three are databases of cooking recipes), I would argue that a good federated search tool could and should be built to simultaniously search all three. I think it is a given that federated search is a poor choice of tools when wanting to look in multiple databases from multiple vendors and of disparate content types. I don\'t think you\'ll find anyone to argue to the contrary. A \"universal search engine\" *is* an impossible goal without a universal controlled vocabulary, but (this is the most important part) federated search <> \"universal search engine\", nor should it. Thank you again, Woody, for starting this very enjoyable conversation! Woody,

A part of the problem I have with your line of reasoning is the very fact that you blow it out into a universal abstraction. It would be downright silly to expect a federated search tool to cross all databases. Federated search is best utilized in databases of similar types of data, when the absence of a controlled vocabulary can be compensated for with skillfully-designed code conversions to negotiate the differences.

Silly example: If you\’ve got three databases of a similar content type from three different vendors (lets say they all three are databases of cooking recipes), I would argue that a good federated search tool could and should be built to simultaniously search all three.

I think it is a given that federated search is a poor choice of tools when wanting to look in multiple databases from multiple vendors and of disparate content types. I don\’t think you\’ll find anyone to argue to the contrary.

A \”universal search engine\” *is* an impossible goal without a universal controlled vocabulary, but (this is the most important part) federated search <> \”universal search engine\”, nor should it.

Thank you again, Woody, for starting this very enjoyable conversation!

]]> By: Woody http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Woody Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:00:50 +0000 http://davidrothman.net/2006/07/26/federated-search-long-story-short-morals/#comment-117 Quick note on 3rd moral -- you've still got controls for thoroghness within single databases. Truncation will take care of the variations on words, for instance. The result set from a single database CAN BE thorough, most often IS in fact thorough because of controlled vocabulary. Note on 1st point -- to argue that a truly good federated search is do-able (and I'm going to blow this out into a universal abstraction, an imaginary federated search mechanism for all databases in existence, in all languages), you also have to argue that a universal controlled vocabulary is do-able. That's a problem. Will we trust LOC subject headings for translations of Tibetan mystical texts, for instance? No single controlled vocab. system can cover all fields of knowledge or human experience, so no single federated search engine is possible. I realize that this gets into a matter of scale, and I won't try to argue that a good f.s. of a small number of databases isn't possible, it obviously is possible -- eps. within databases from one vendor with one standard vocab. for subjects. But when you get more than two 'vendors' involved with different controls and standards and you try to cram them into one workable system, bugs pour from the seams! In the long run, if a goal might be to, say, create a universal 'google' f.s. system for 'all the world's knowledge' or something, more and more and more bugs will breed. So to speak. I think. Quick note on 3rd moral — you’ve still got controls for thoroghness within single databases. Truncation will take care of the variations on words, for instance. The result set from a single database CAN BE thorough, most often IS in fact thorough because of controlled vocabulary.
Note on 1st point — to argue that a truly good federated search is do-able (and I’m going to blow this out into a universal abstraction, an imaginary federated search mechanism for all databases in existence, in all languages), you also have to argue that a universal controlled vocabulary is do-able. That’s a problem. Will we trust LOC subject headings for translations of Tibetan mystical texts, for instance? No single controlled vocab. system can cover all fields of knowledge or human experience, so no single federated search engine is possible. I realize that this gets into a matter of scale, and I won’t try to argue that a good f.s. of a small number of databases isn’t possible, it obviously is possible — eps. within databases from one vendor with one standard vocab. for subjects. But when you get more than two ‘vendors’ involved with different controls and standards and you try to cram them into one workable system, bugs pour from the seams! In the long run, if a goal might be to, say, create a universal ‘google’ f.s. system for ‘all the world’s knowledge’ or something, more and more and more bugs will breed. So to speak. I think.

]]>