Serials – 20(1), March 2007 Key issue Key issue

Federated searching: today, tomorrow and the future (?)

FRANK CERVONE Assistant University Librarian for Information Technology Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Although for many people it may seem that authorization, thereby allowing patrons the ability federated search software has been around forever, to use the resources from wherever they may it has only been a little over three years since happen to be. federated search burst on the library scene. In that time, the software has been evolving in many ways as the landscape of Internet-based searching has Standard features and evolving trends shifted. When many libraries decided to install federated In the current generation of federated searching search software, they were trying to address some products, standard features include the ability to of the issues that have confounded searchers since use multiple protocols for gathering data from the introduction of CD ROM-based indexes in the information products. In addition to the ubiquitous early 1990s. For example, it has been known for Z39.50 protocol, newer protocols such as SRU/SRW some time that when patrons have multiple and OAI-PMH are rapidly becoming basic require- databases available to them, they typically prefer ments for all federated search engines, regardless to use a single interface rather than having to learn of scale. difference interfaces for each database. Further- As the needs of researchers and faculty evolve, more, most people want to have a way to search advanced features are being built into next- those multiple resources simultaneously and then generation federated searching products, such as consolidate the search results into a single, ordered integration of the federated searching software with list. More or less, these problems are now solved other packages like course management systems through the use of federated search tools. (Blackboard, WebCT, and SAKAI), bibliographic But federated search tools can also provide management software (RefWorks and WriteNote), other benefits to patrons. Many search tools are as well as campus portal software. Another emer- able to hook into local authentication systems. By ging trend is expanded functionality, such as doing so, access to resources can be controlled, tighter integration of the catalog with full-text making it possible to only expose those resources sources and mechanisms for displaying results to which a patron can actually gain access. In large, through visualizations. These visualizations may complex environments where a database may not take the form of a lattice diagram that links be purchased for organization-wide use, this is a keywords together (Aquabrowser), a concentric critical management issue. A side benefit of this diagram that clusters similar items (Grokker), a authentication linkage is that is also provides ‘phrase cloud’ that takes subject headings and a convenient mechanism for enabling remote other information and displays it in a tag cloud

67 Key issue Serials – 20(1), March 2007 format (Encore), or a faceted breakdown of the Some things to bear in mind structured heading into a more usable form (Primo and Endeca). With the widespread use of federated search, a number of things have been learned about how people actually use these products. For example, A quick survey of the current marketplace multiple usability studies report that one of the distinct advantages for people using a federated As is true in other software markets, the library is the ‘serendipity’ of finding management software marketplace has consolidated previously hidden information resources. Since even further with the recent merger of Endeavor most researchers are only familiar with a limited Information Systems into the Ex Libris Group. number of databases in their area of expertise, they Unlike the Sirsi/Dynix merger, where the two rarely search in databases outside their immediate product lines were continued, the Endeavor discipline. The use of a federated search engine products (ENCompass and Discovery: Finder) will frequently will take them into new databases, be going by the wayside in favor of Ex Libris’ thereby providing new worlds of resources to MetaLib. However, the focus of MetaLib itself is explore. The end result is that students and faculty changing as well. In the future, while MetaLib will often will find many significant citations of which still continue to have its own native interface, they were not previously aware. expect to see more libraries using Primo as the Usability studies also point out the need for front-end to both MetaLib and their Voyager or simple search interfaces. Patrons, in general, do Aleph catalogs. not want search interfaces that provide a myriad In the short term, minor increases in func- of choices or require them to make decisions. tionality in existing federated search products will Furthermore, the vast majority of patrons will be the norm as the vendors put the finishing never use a ‘complex’ or ‘advanced’ query option touches on their next-generation integrated as they expect the search engine to figure out what interface solutions. An example of this short-term it is they want. The reality is that most of these approach is that both Ex Libris (in MetaLib) and complex or advanced options are so complex or Serials Solutions (CentralSearch) are integrating advanced that the average person cannot really the Vivisimo faceted browser into their federated work out what it is they are supposed to do, so the search interfaces. functionality goes unused. Further evidence of the maturing of the market- Consequently, creating an effective federated place for federated searching is the introduction of search interface is a delicate balancing act. Perhaps lighter-weight solutions for smaller libraries. Most one of the most important aspects in creating a of these solutions come from traditional content usable interface is finding the right grouping of aggregation services. Seeing the writing on the databases for subject areas or ‘interests.’ Defining wall, these vendors are trying to carve out a new these is typically the most complex and time- space, which has led to the launch of hosted consuming aspect of the implementation. If we go federated search services from Cambridge Scientific overboard, however, we will run into the problem Abstracts (CSA) through their Illumina platform, of ‘too much leads to too little.’ Long lists of the integration of federated search and Grokker resources are often developed in the hope of visualizations into the EBSCO database platform, promoting awareness of the various resources in as well as the integration of the MuseGlobal search the library; however, students find these lists engine platform into Ovid. Additionally, several confusing. As one student in a recent study put it: vendors (Serials Solutions and Ex Libris) have “Those long lists really make me feel stupid.” moved into the application service provider space Obviously, a product that makes someone feel (ASP) by providing hosted services for their stupid is not one to which they will return. Best federated search products. WebFeat has taken this practices indicate that one way of alleviating a step further with the introduction of WebFeat this problem is to have a ‘best bets’ group of Express, a hosted solution that is configurable and 3 primary databases in a subject area, with the rest ready to use by simply answering some basic of the relevant resources as a secondary group questions about the library and its resources. afterwards.

68 Serials – 20(1), March 2007 Key issue

Summary Representative Vendor listing: As the federated search market moves ahead, one ■ AGent™ – Auto-Graphics, Inc: of the main things we are seeing is the integration http://www.auto-graphics.com/ of more advanced search technologies, both on ■ Aquabrowser – Medialab Solutions BV: the back end and the front end. This provides the http://www.aquabrowser.com/ software with the ability to better interface with ■ CARLweb – TLC, The Library Corporation: other commonly used software in the research http://www.tlcdelivers.com/tlc/carlweb.asp environment, such as course and bibliographic ■ CentralSearch – Serials Solutions: management systems. Combined with the incorp- http://www.serialssolutions.com/ oration of visualization and topic clustering tools, promotion/centralsearch.asp these products are meeting the emergent needs of ■ Chameleon iPortal – VTLS Inc: researchers. http://www.vtls.com/Products/gateway/ However, all is not rosy. Many people question ■ DQM2, Deep Query Manager™ and Deep the long-term viability of federated search software Federation Portal™ – BrightPlanet® Corp: in a world where and Microsoft http://www.brightplanet.com/products/ Academic Live are able to search much, although dqm.asp not all, of the same content that federated search ■ EBSCO AtoZ with WebFeat – EBSCO engines do. A big question for both vendors and Information Services: libraries is where federated search will fit into the http://www.ebsco.com/home/ejournals/ search environment of the future. Will Google default.asp Scholar and MS Academic Live completely ■ Encore – Innovative Interfaces Inc: eliminate the need for federated search? Or will the http://www.iii.com/ next generation of federated search engines offer ■ Explorit™ Software Suite – extra value to the searcher in the form of highly Technologies LLC: contextualized information in the local http://www.deepwebtech.com/technology/ environment? The answer to these questions explorit.php remains to be seen, but it is clear that the ■ FDI Portal – Fretwell-Downing: overarching concept of an integrated searching of www.fdgroup.com/fdi/marketing/zportal_ resources is here to stay. choice.html ■ Grokker – Groxis, Inc: http://www.grokker.com/ Further sources of information ■ Horizon Information Portal – SirsiDynix™: http://www.sirsidynix.com/Solutions/ One of the earliest articles related to issues in federated Products/portalsearch.php searching: ■ Keystone™ DSL – Index Data ApS: Payette, S and Rieger, O, Z39.50: The User’s http://www.indexdata.dk/keystone/ ■ Perspective, D-Lib Magazine, April 1997. Online at: MetaLib – Ex Libris Group: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april97/cornell/04payette. http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/metalib.htm ■ html MetaSearch Solution – Blue Angel Technologies, Inc Arecent discussion of the tensions between federated http://www.blueangeltech.com/ search engine implementations and the ubiquity of the ■ – CSA: Google search engine: http://www.csa.com/e_products/MS_main.php Chen, X, Metalib, WebFeat, and Google: The strengths ■ Muse Solutions and MuseSearch™ – and weaknesses of federated search engines compared MuseGlobal, Inc: with Google. Online Information Review2006, (30)4, http://www.museglobal.com/solutions/ 413–427. ■ OpenSiteSearch – Hosted by SourceForge™. A good overview of SRU/SRW and OAI-PMH: net: Fox, R, Lingua franca of digital libraries. OCLC Systems http://opensitesearch.sourceforge.net/ & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 2006, ■ Polaris® PowerPAC™ Portal – GIS 22(1), 26–33. Information Systems, Inc.™: http://www.gisinfosystems.com/

69 Key issue Serials – 20(1), March 2007

■ Searcher Analyzer – TDNet Inc: ■ ZONE-Pro™ and Zones™ line of products – http://www.tdnet.com/site/page.asp?ID= BiblioMondo, Inc: 460A&Parent=457 http://www.bibliomondo.com/site/ ■ SearchSolver – Ovid, Inc: solutions/search.php http://www.ovid.com/site/products/tools/ searchsolver.jsp ■ WebFeat Prism and WebFeat Express – Article © Frank Cervone WebFeat Inc: http://www.webfeat.org/

To view the original copy of this key issue, published in Serials, the journal of the UKSG, click here:

http://serials.uksg.org/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0953-0460&volume=20&issue=1&spage=67

For a link to the table of contents for the issue of Serials in which this article first appeared, click here:

http://serials.uksg.org/openurl.asp?genre=issue&issn=0953-0460&volume=20&issue=1

70