Tuna Breath

Response to RedLightGreen Before the Launch

I want to record what's been said on the web about RedLightGreen before we launch. In part, it will be interesting to see if the characterization of certain features changes when people get their hands on the engine. Will the FRBR buzz go away? Where did the "like Amazon" comparison come from and will it go away? Will the Googleness remain praised? Will anyone notice the vocabulary expansion that comes about from linking Subject Authority records in the indexed terms or from Recommind's analysis of relatedness?

2003-07-20: Google displays 47 results of about 113. (Many are the Shelf Life citation repeated over and over.)

• In Library Journal, Not Your Mother's Union Catalog, Roy Tennant:
  • We're offered up as an example of "FRBRizing." We're FRBR informed, but it's not strict FRBR. It's a very simple algorithm in abstract -- all the records with the same author and the same uniform title are grouped together. For those records without a uniform title, we match against the all 245 titles present along with uniform titles. This will exclude some things considered part of the work, but also pulls in related works as well. It also falls prey to bad cataloging practice from time to time.
  • There seems to be a premise that one can't offer up a service with heterogeneous XML or data formats. While I do hope a successful RedLightGreen project will fold in OAI harvested records, I don't believe it depends on the data being in MARC or not-MARC.
  • Data mining: we had to pull back from some of the automatic categorization methods. While Recommind's engine showed promise, and we spent much time experimenting, the labeling issue was problematic.
• Some simple cheers for the Googleness of our approach:
  • Raymond Yee
  • Dylan Tweney (Entry 349 appears gone)
  • "Citator Algorithm for Library Content" -- from Dylan Tweney's mention
• Notes of our existence:
  • Thomas J. Casserly's reading notes
  • Someone curious about metadata
  • Bifurcated Rivets