Changes between Version 21 and Version 22 of ChangesFromNGR
- Timestamp:
- 08/24/09 05:58:52 (4 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
ChangesFromNGR
v21 v22 20 20 '''5.''' Tabbed view of Metadata[[BR]] 21 21 '''6.''' Local rating[[BR]] 22 '''7.''' Relevance as a percentage[[BR]] 22 23 23 24 Another change proposal (INSPIRE support) will be separately described by [http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Fxp Francois] and [http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Heikki Heikki]. Yet another change proposal (replacing !InterMap by !OpenLayers) is already described [http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/ReplacingIntermap here]. … … 35 36 36 37 === Voting History === 37 Although presented together in one proposal, all 6items will be put up for voting separately.38 Although presented together in one proposal, all 7 items will be put up for voting separately. 38 39 * None as yet 39 40 … … 49 50 '''5.''' Better usability[[BR]] 50 51 '''6.''' Local user feedback[[BR]] 51 52 '''7.''' Better usability[[BR]] 52 53 53 54 … … 60 61 A second performance gain is effected by a change to retrieving the regions data in the search service. In standard !GeoNetwork, the regions are retrieved from the DB at each search request; in this proposal, it happens only once, after which the regions data is kept in memory for application lifetime.[[BR]][[BR]] 61 62 Performance metrics from [http://www.yourkit.com/ YourKit Java Profiler] show that this change leads to a 90% performance increase of the search service as such (excluding the creation of the search results page). 63 [[BR]][[BR]] 62 64 63 65 '''2. Persistent validation results'''[[BR]] … … 67 69 An icon indicating the validation status, that links to the validation report if the metadata is not valid, can be included in the search results page an/or in the show metadata page. This indicates something about the quality of the metadata to users, and may encourage metadata providers to produce more valid metadata.[[BR]][[BR]] 68 70 TODO add screenshot 71 [[BR]][[BR]] 69 72 70 73 '''3. Organizations'''[[BR]] … … 73 76 TODO add class diagram[[BR]] 74 77 [[Image(ngr.organizationpage.png)]] 78 [[BR]][[BR]] 75 79 76 80 '''4. Service monitoring'''[[BR]] … … 78 82 The uptime results for services are also claculated for all the services provided by one organization. On the Organizations page, this is displayed. 79 83 TODO add screenshots 84 [[BR]][[BR]] 80 85 81 86 … … 84 89 [[Image(ngr.tabs.metadata.show.png)]][[BR]] 85 90 TODO compare with BlueNetMEST 91 [[BR]][[BR]] 86 92 87 93 '''6. Local rating'''[[BR]] 88 94 In !GeoNetwork, users can rate metadata. The user's rating is broadcast to all !GeoNetwork nodes known to the one where the rating happens, and the results are thus shared between nodes. In [http://nationaalgeoregister.nl NGR] this does not happen and the rating is simply kept and calculated on only the user ratings on the GN node itself. This proposal wants to make this "local" rating behaviour an option to standard !GeoNetwork, configurable through the Admin interface. 95 [[BR]][[BR]] 96 97 '''7. Relevance as a percentage'''[[BR]] 98 In standard !GeoNetwork search results can be ordered by relevance. This is based on the relevance score that the Lucene search engine gives to each item in the search results. However it is not shown to the user what the relevance score for each result *is*.[[BR]] 99 In [http://nationaalgeoregister.nl NGR] the relevance score is displayed with each search result. Because the Lucene score is an unattractive float between 0 and 1, the relevance score is normalized such that the highest score from the search results is set to 100, and all other results' scores are calculated relative to that.[[BR]] 100 [[Image(ngr.relevance.percentage.png)]][[BR]] 101 [[BR]][[BR]] 89 102 90 103 … … 97 110 '''5.''' none[[BR]] 98 111 '''6.''' none[[BR]] 99 112 '''7.''' if implementations use the raw Lucene score for anything, this will be broken (not in standard !GeoNetwork)[[BR]] 100 113 101 114 == Risks ==
