Central vs. Local

@kboughida - I wanted to answer your question from zoom, but got cut off. I think the question of open and closed is not just about Ex Libris, but it is a statement about the industry as a whole, the same happens with EDS, OCLC Discovery, and Yewno. So I think it’s important to speak about this as central vs. standards-based vs local customization of the relevancy ranking rather than CDI vs. something else. I am just glad that ExL has had a user community for 20 years to influence the development process in this way.

That said, there is a lot that can be done in the area of personalization and localization that might be a combination of approaches. For example, there could be mappings of local stop lists - dont show these words. There can be subject terms that get mapped to different linked subject terms (think “illegal aliens” as an example of this type of potential tracing). At the very least, these are the terms that have the word (redacted) placed at the end of their usage. There is a third approach to take, which is standards-based, that I would like to see NISO take leadership on.

The DEI advisory group is looking at these approaches and even more ambitious ones, but it’s a question of what can be done as MVP and what is more nuanced/granular (Perfect is the enemy of good).

In the end, I believe that we’re trying to think about whether we can do for content development what we did for software development (Product Development Collaboration Agreement – ELUNA). If we can agree on the process, then we’ll have a structure for this type of feature development. In the end, I believe this will be a major improvement in the relationship and for DEI development of the content indexes. Next will be to figure this out in local cataloging softwares.