Federated search products and FullText/PeerReviewlimiting

What's good about LFP is that it can be applied to vendor
or even the
title level, whereas with other link resolvers, it is an
all-or-nothing
setting.  Some vendors are quite trustworthy and we can feel
secure in
sending the user directly to the full-text.  Others are
definitely not
so, or LFP does not have the best configuration.  I would
highly
recommend that all link resolvers make this feature
available at the
title or at least vendor level.
 
 
Karen R. Harker, MLS
UT Southwestern Medical Library
5323 Harry Hines Blvd.
Dallas, TX  75390-9049
214-648-8946
http://www.uts
outhwestern.edu/library/

>>> Eric Hellman <ericopenly.com> 4/24/2006
11:22 AM >>>

In our system, there are 3 modes configurable by the library
autoredirect=off  --- always show the link-server page
autoredirect=single  --- this means redirect if there is one
and only 
one 'best' link
autoredirect=best    --- redirect to the first 'best' link
found even 
if there are multiple high quality links; links can be
ordered by 
preferred providers

I believe that Endeavor's LinkFinderPlus was the first
commercial 
OpenURL resolver that touted this sort of capability.

Eric


At 8:30 AM -0700 4/24/06, Mark Jordan wrote:
>David Walker wrote:
>>>>The only way around this I can see is if 
your OpenURL resolver 
>>>>would automatically route the user to
full-text if it's available 
>>>>without putting up a resolver menu.
>>
>>Which is what I'd like to do here.
>>
>>I'm thinking of something along the lines of GUF at
Rochester, which
not
>>only sends the user directly to the full-text, but
also does some
>>pre-checking of the target to see if it is alive,
and some
additional
>>drilling-down to the article level.
>>
>
>I'd be interested to know how direct-to-document
resolvers handle 
>the appropriate cop(ies) problem -- what text does the
Rochester 
>resolver present to the user when the library has
multiple versions 
>of the same article from different vendors? Does it
favor certain 
>vendors? Just a question...
>
>Mark
>
>
>Mark Jordan
>Head of Library Systems
>W.A.C. Bennett Library, Simon Fraser University
>Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
>Phone (604) 291 5753 / Fax (604) 291 3023
>mjordansfu.ca / http://www.sfu.ca/~mjorda
n/

-- 

Eric Hellman, Director                            OCLC
Openly 
Informatics Division
ericopenly.com                                    2 Broad
St., Suite
208
tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216             
Bloomfield, NJ
07003
http://www.openly.com/1c
ate/      1 Click Access To Everything
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/

Way back on April 18, Roy Tennant wrote:

>Even better would be to have the ability to limit search
results to
>full-text resources, but as has been said here that is
still
>difficult and often out of our hands (vendors need to
support it). So
>no, the problem is far from solved, at least from the
perspective of
>good user service.

Ever the consistent and insightful scribe, Roy documented
the advantages 
of this kind of limit function brilliantly a few years ago
in "The Trouble 
with Online" <h
ttp://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA452319/>, and
I have 
been hung up on  it ever since Roy's article and grimacing
through a 
particular rash of comments in a survey here around the same
time that 
included zingers like "don't show it to me unless you
can deliver it NOW". 
The "full text" status workarounds involving
images and so on that have 
emerged on this thread are well worth pursuing, and are a
big step forward 
from the "click and hope" model that resolvers
seem to represent now. But 
the idea of scoping results based on availability might
conceivably be 
powered by a common index format. There's an interesting
example in the 
book "Lucene in Action" for combining indexes at
remote sites using 
Lucene, and I wonder if the appearance of open source and
network savvy 
indexers makes limiting feasible in real time across
different systems. 
Imagine if you indexed your resolver data with Lucene and a
content 
provider made an index of holdings available using the same
tool. Or maybe 
you want to use a subset of what's in the knowledge base,
or use some 
other source for identifying accessible material. Lucene
seems to be very 
efficient at combining indexes, and then limiting based on
the process, 
and there are probably other systems that can jump through
similar hoops. 
It would be interesting to take a service with publically
available 
citation data and combine it with an indexed rendering of
resolver content 
to see how efficient this could be made to function.

art
---
Art Rhyno
Systems Librarian
http://librarycog.uwind
sor.ca
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4libwebjunction.org
http://lists.we
bjunction.org/web4lib/