Federated Searchof

Today and Tomorrow

Shanyun Zhang Electronic Resources Librarian, John K. Mullen Library

The Catholic University of America

Potomac Valley Chapter of ASIST September 27, 2006

Outline

Summary of Our Research Project Findings Today’s Federated Search Possible Directions

Context

User interest in one-stop shopping Increased awareness among librarians of

the value of federated search WRLC implementation

Research Objectives

To understand users’ perceptions of a federated search system

To compare and contrast the perceptions of librarians and students regarding federated search

To identify areas of confusion and misperceptions and explore their implications for literacy programs in federated search and for system design

Methodology (1)

Survey instrument Experience with MetaLib Combined Search

(MCS) Usage Opinions of MCS Search simulation (see sample screens)

Narrative Drawing

Screen A

Methodology (2)

Participants Librarians from WRLC libraries Students from the School of Library &

Information Science MetaLib expert implementer for WRLC

Methodology (3) Data collection

Mail survey (early Jan. 2006) Take-home survey (late Jan. 2006)

Data processing & analysis RAs Descriptive statistics Content analysis of open-ended questions Analysis of components and relationships in

narratives and drawings (in progress)

Participants Background Total 19 Librarians

Total 22 students

Findings: Usage

32%

32%

0%

39%

23%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Quick search

After fruitlesssearch

Full text

Librarians Students

Findings: Assessment

Useful, but complex and hard to figure out

Students: 69% Librarians: 11%

Not useful, and hard to figure out

Students: 8% Librarians: 47%

42% of the librarians believed users made use of MCS without knowing exactly how it worked.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

Students

Librarians

Findings: FindIt Function

Only 27% of the students noticed the “FindIt” button

Findings: Areas of Confusion(selected subcategories)

Librarians Students

Background informationHow MCS works and its limitationsDatabase information

44%26%

13%

42%12%

21%

MetaLib system operationResult display, ranking & relevanceFindItFull text retrieval

51%21%

18%

8%

27%15%

3%

9%

Search supportSearch tutorial, Search modification, Technical support, search history

5% 27%

Topics to Learn(selected subcategories)

Answers from Students

Background informationWhat databases are covered by MetaLibWhat full text journals users have access to Federated search process & what are differences

50%28%

9%

9%

MetaLib system operationhow return search results, how determine relevance

22%

Search strategiesHow to enter search terms; How to use search fields; How to broaden the search; How to use controlled vocabulary

13%

Practice 16%

Topics to Cover

Students want to learn: Background (50%) MetaLib system

operation (22%) Search strategies

(13%) Practice (16%)

Librarians want to teach: Background (30%) MetaLib system

operation (28%) Search strategies (37%) Instruction methods (5%)

Today’s Federated Search

Students say “Cool!” One interface One search to full text

Librarians are unhappy with its performance

Database inclusion Search speed Retrieval precision Result comprehensiveness

Possible Directions

System architectures Distributed search model (queries to multiple remote

resources in real time, which suffers from multiple limitations: number of connections available, slowness of remote services, and large result sets)

Centralized search model (gathering data on the universe of interest in advance and processing it into indexes that can provide instant results to searchers’ queries)

Cooperation between giant aggregators and publishers CSA MultiSearch

Information Standards

Z39.50 is the primary standard utilized in Metalib Difficult to sort large result sets Many vendors don’t support Z39.50

NISO Metasearch Initiative NISO Metasearch XML Gateway

Simplified CQL (Common Query Language) and SRU (Search & Retrieval via URL) for queries

XML for responses http://www.niso.org/committees/MS_initiative.html

Which is better?

Advantages DisadvantagesCommercial Federated Search Systems

Multiple search options Expensive; More maintenance staff needed

Google Scholar Free; Will be benefit from the open contents

Keyword search only; Cooperation with libraries needed

Cooperated Aggregators and Publishers

Metadata and content available;

Minimum maintenance in libraries

Expensive

Thank You!

Contact Information

Shanyun Zhangzhangs@cua.edu

Coming publication: Tang, Rong, Hsieh-Yee, Ingrid, & Zhang, Shanyun. (Accepted). “User Perceptions of MetaLib Combined

Search: An Investigation of How Users Make Sense of Federated Searching”. Internet Reference Services Quarterly.

Future Readings

Breeding, M. 2005. Plotting a new course for metasearch. Computers in Libraries 25(2): 27-29.

Webster, P. 2004. Metasearching in an academic environment. Online 28(2): 20-23.

Sadeh, T. 2006. Google Scholar versus metasearch systems. HEP Librarians Webzone 12. http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/12/papers/1/.

Cervone, F. 2005. What we’ve learned from doing usability testing on OpenURL resolvers and federated search engines. Computers in Libraries 25: 10-15.