Elaine,
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.
OK, but that doesn't explain why the *displayed* record appears to be
incoherent given the search term.
If the record in question had returned the content of the 700 field, as
opposed to the 100 field for that record, the question would have never
come up.
In other words, search the 700 field (I am not sure what you do about
the illus. who was also listed when there is an author search) but
return a *displayed* result that is meaningful in terms of the search
request.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.georgialibraries.org
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Patrick Durusau
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:02 AM
To: [email protected]
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
--
Patrick Durusau
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Acting Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Co-Editor, OpenDocument Format (OASIS, ISO/IEC 26300)
