You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are numerous duplicate records in the catalog that result in noisy search results that can be difficult for users to browse through. As resource sharing efforts advance (such as POD/ReShare) and more records may be made available to users in our discovery system this problem will continue to grow.
Problem Statement
Many resource sharing and collection evaluation efforts utilize the concept of a match key to identify duplicate records. Gold rush is a well-known example. Can we identify an open and reliable formula that we can leverage to add a match key to each bibliographic record in our discovery system? We also want to be able to share the algorithm we select with our peer institutions, library staff members and end users who want to know how the system handles this question.
Initial Goals
Identify a test set of records containing known duplicates and near matches.
Select a test algorithm and run it on a set of test records.
Develop a plan for scaling this up to our entire set of bibliographic records we make available in Orangelight.
Develop a plan that leverages the key to de-duplicate records for end user discovery that handles the following questions (1) How do we handle letting the user know about holdings of de-duplicated records? (2) How do we handle electronic only materials that may be logical duplicates of print only materials?
Acceptance criteria
Update an existing markdown document or add a new one in the research directory.
It has introduction: Explains the goals and purpose of this research work.
It lists methods: Describe what you did to research the question.
It has a conclusion: Includes a summary of what was discovered in the research process.
It has a step by step list of potential next steps that build upon the research.
It includes references: References any related resources that have assisted in the research process (links to other tickets, online articles etc.).
It includes any artifacts (charts, notes, code samples etc.) that were produced during the work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Introduction
There are numerous duplicate records in the catalog that result in noisy search results that can be difficult for users to browse through. As resource sharing efforts advance (such as POD/ReShare) and more records may be made available to users in our discovery system this problem will continue to grow.
Problem Statement
Many resource sharing and collection evaluation efforts utilize the concept of a match key to identify duplicate records. Gold rush is a well-known example. Can we identify an open and reliable formula that we can leverage to add a match key to each bibliographic record in our discovery system? We also want to be able to share the algorithm we select with our peer institutions, library staff members and end users who want to know how the system handles this question.
Initial Goals
Acceptance criteria
Update an existing markdown document or add a new one in the research directory.
It has introduction: Explains the goals and purpose of this research work.
It lists methods: Describe what you did to research the question.
It has a conclusion: Includes a summary of what was discovered in the research process.
It has a step by step list of potential next steps that build upon the research.
It includes references: References any related resources that have assisted in the research process (links to other tickets, online articles etc.).
It includes any artifacts (charts, notes, code samples etc.) that were produced during the work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: