[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Introduction and Question

[David J. Fiander]

One of the problems that I have with Evergreen searching, which I've 
complained about before is the way that the system will search fields that 
are not displayed in the search results screen to the average user.

My favourite example is an author search for "Fiander" in PINES.  There are 
some books in the library field that might appear, but you also see some 
british videos that appear, and there's NO indication in the public display 
why they matched a search for Fiander, until you look at the MARC display 
and discover that the actor Lewis Fiander (no relation) appears in the cast 
list, which is not displayed to the public.

One of the first rules of cataloguing is that access points (ie search 
fields) MUST be supported by the record somehow.

- David

Hardy, Elaine wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> The 700 field in a MARC record is an author field. It is used when there
> are either multiple authors for the item (since the 1xx fields are not
> repeatable) or when the person responsible for the work is an editor. So
> we do want an author search to include the 700 field.
> 
> 
>  Elaine Hardy
>  
>  
> J. Elaine Hardy
> Library Services Manager - Collections & Reference
> Georgia Public Library Service,
> A Unit of the University System of Georgia
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, Ga. 30345-4304
> 404.235-7128
> 404.235-7201, fax
>  
> ehardy at georgialibraries.org
> www.georgialibraries.org
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of
> Patrick Durusau
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org
> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Introduction and Question
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> This is my first post so first a word or two about my background. I am 
> currently a co-editor for the OpenDocument Format standard in OASIS and 
> its project editor in ISO (ISO 26300). I am also chair of the US 
> committee that is the mirror commitee of SC 34, which is currently 
> considering OpenXML (DIS 29500). When I am not involved in either of 
> those projects, I am the convener of SC 34/WG 3, Topic Maps, as well as 
> a co-editor of various parts of that standard. I am an independent 
> consultant on standards (primarily markup and semantic integration) and 
> related technologies.
> 
> My question: Where are the search and relevance sections of the 
> Evergreen code?
> 
> I ask because I was posting an ILL for "Computers and Intractibility: A 
> Guide to the Theory of NP-completeness" to my local library and in an 
> effort to be helpful, I did a keyword search in Pines for 
> np-completeness (note the lack of quotes) thinking that is a fairly 
> unique term. Try it with Pines. The results are rather amusing and quite
> 
> definitely not relevant.
> 
> I performed the same keyword search with "np-completeness" and got no 
> hits. (I would have expected to have the same results with the first 
> search.)
> 
> That made me curious so I tried searching for author, Garey, thinking it
> 
> is a fairly unusual spelling so I would not get too many hits.
> 
> Ok, I get some "garey" authors in the first 10 "hits" but also:
> 
> Found objects a style and source book  
> Ruggiero, Joseph.
> 
> Slipcover chic : designing and sewing elegant slipcovers at home
> Revland, Catherine.
> 
> As "hits" 9 and 10.
> 
> Perfectly fine books I am sure but not what I would be looking for when 
> searching for author = garey.
> 
> Anyway, since searching is one of my interests (topic maps and their 
> construction) I was puzzled by the anomalous result.
> 
> Looking at the MARC record for the Revland, Catherine "hit" it appears 
> that author = garey request is searching the 100 field *and* the 700 
> field, which for this item includes:
> 
> 700 aBall, Michell, ill.
> 700 aGarey, Carol Cooper
> 
> Which would be understandable if I had asked for a "keyword" search. Not
> 
> so understandable with a author search.
> 
> Well, I suppose I have two questions in addition to my first one, ;-) .
> 
> 2. Where is the "relevance" code in particular since it was the source 
> of the seemingly odd results on np-completeness.
> 
> 3. Shouldn't author searches default to the MARC 100 field? (With 
> keyword taking in 700 entries, etc.)
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 


-- 
David J. Fiander
Digital Services Librarian