1 introducing the open discovery initiative discovery and delivery: innovations and challenges...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Introducing theOpen Discovery
Initiative
Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and Challenges
Marshall Breedinghttp://www.librarytechnology.org/http://twitter.com/mbreeding
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Evolution of library search• Card Catalogs• Online Catalogs• Federated search tools• Next-generation library catalogs• Index-based discovery services
3
Online Catalog
• Books, Journals, and Media at the Title Level
• Not in scope:– Articles– Book Chapters– Digital objects
Scope of SearchSearch:
Search Results
ILS Data
Discovery Interfaces
Search: Digital Collections
ProQuest
EBSCOhost
…MLA
Bibliography
ABC-CLIO
Search Results
Real-time query and responses
ILS Data
Local Index
Federated S
earch E
ngine
Index-based Discovery
Search:
Digital Collections
Web Site ContentInstitutiona
l Repositorie
s
…E-Journals
Reference Sources
Search Results
Pre-built harvesting and indexing
Consolidated Index
ILS Data
Aggregated Content packages
Citations > Full Text
• Citations or structured metadata provide key data to power search & retrieval and faceted navigation
• Indexing full-text of content amplifies access
• Important to understand depth indexing– Currency, dates covered, full-text or
citation– Many other factors
Need to bring Order to Chaos• Important space for libraries and
publishers• Discovery brings value to library
collections• Discovery brings uncertainty to
publishers• Uneven participation diminishes
impact• Ecosystem dominated by private
agreements • Complexity and uncertainty poses
barriers for participation
9
Library Perspective
• Strategic investments in subscriptions• Strategic investments in Discovery Solutions to provide
access to their collections, including access to electronic resources
• Expect comprehensive representation of resources in discovery indexes– Problem with access to resources not represented in index– Encourage all publishers to participate and to lower thresholds
of technical involvement and clarify the business rules associated with involvement
• Need to be able to evaluate the depth and quality of these index-based discovery products
• Facilitate a healthy ecosystem among publishers, discovery service providers, and libraries
Collection Coverage?
• To work effectively, discovery services need to cover comprehensively the body of content represented in library collections
• Why do some publishers not participate?• Is content indexed at the citation or full-
text level?• What are the restrictions for non-
authenticated users?• How can libraries understand the
differences in coverage among competing services?
Evaluating the Coverage of Index-based Discovery Services
• Intense competition: how well the index covers the body of scholarly content stands as a key differentiator
• Difficult to evaluate based on numbers of items indexed alone.
• Important to ascertain how your library’s content packages are represented by the discovery service.
• Important to know what items are indexed by citation and which are full text
ODI Pre-History
• June 26, 2011: Exploratory meeting @ ALA Annual
• July 2011: NISO expresses interest• Aug 7, 2011: Proposal drafted by
participants submitted to NISO• Aug 2011: Proposal accepted by D2D• Vote of approval by NISO
membership• Oct 2011: ODI launched• Feb 2012: ODI Workgroup Formed
15
Organization
• Reports in NISO through Document to Delivery topic committee (D2D)
• Staff support from NISO through Nettie Lagace
• Co-Chairs– Jenny Walker (Ex Libris)– Marshall Breeding (Library Consultant)
• D2D Observers: Jeff Penka (OCLC)Lucy Harrison (CCLA)
16
Balance of Constituents
Libraries
Publishers
Service Providers
17
Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt UniversityJamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard UniversityKen Varnum, University of Michigan
Anya Arnold, Orbis Cascade Alliance
Sara Brownmiller, University of OregonLucy Harrison, College Center for Library Automation (D2D liaison/observer)Michele Newberry, Florida Virtual Campus
Lettie Conrad, SAGE PublicationsBeth LaPensee, ITHAKA/JSTOR/PorticoJeff Lang, Thomson Reuters
Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc
Aaron Wood, Alexander Street PressRoger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka
Jenny Walker, Ex Libris GroupJohn Law, Serials SolutionsMichael Gorrell, EBSCO Information ServicesDavid Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)
Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)
ODI Project Goals:
• Identify … needs and requirements of the three stakeholder groups in this area of work.
• Create recommendations and tools to streamline the process by which information providers, discovery service providers, and librarians work together to better serve libraries and their users.
• Provide effective means for librarians to assess the level of participation by information providers in discovery services, to evaluate the breadth and depth of content indexed and the degree to which this content is made available to the user.
Subgroups for Info Gathering• Level of Indexing + Communication
of Library Rights• Technical formats• Usage Statistics• Fair Linking
19
Specific deliverables
• Standard vocabulary• NISO Recommended Practice:
– Data format & transfer– Communicating content rights– Levels of indexing, content availability– Linking to content– Usage statistics– Evaluate compliance
• Inform and Promote Adoption20
Timeline
Milestone Target Date
Status
Appointment of working group December 2011
Approval of charge and initial work plan March 2012
Agreement on process and tools June 2012
Completion of information gathering October 2012
Completion of initial draft March 2013
Completion of final draft May 2013
21
ODI Stakeholder Survey
• Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4, 2012
• Each subgroup developed questions pertinent to it area of concern
22
Selected results
• Libraries: do you use a discovery service?– Yes: 74%, Planning to soon: 17%, No:
5%, Don’t know: 4%• Smallest discoverable unit:
– Component title: 9%, Article: 25%, Collective work record: 11%, All the above: 50%
• Linking from A&I entry: 75 prefer linking to full text on original publisher’s server
24
Librarian’s preferred Use statistics• Total Number of Searches• List of search query terms• Referring URLs
25
Content providers (74)
• Contribute data: Yes-All: 44%, Some: 48%, No: 8%– Current data: 12%, Current + back files:
85• Barriers to contributing:
– IP concerns, technology, staff resources• Challenges in delivery:
– Complicated formats: 15%, transmission of data: 18, allocation of personnel: 23%, can’t automate: 12%, None: 20%
26
Issues surrounding A&I resources• Concern that A&I resources not be
freely available to non authenticated users and only for subscribing institutions
• How to “credit” A&I data that contributes to search results– Example: Index entry produced by
enhancing full-text with A&I data• Preservation of the value added by
A&I in the discovery ecosystem27
ODO Survey Report
• NOT the final report for ODI• Survey findings, especially for those
that responded to survey• One source of input for the ODI final
report of findings and recommended practices
28
Current work Next Steps
• Follow-up interviews with content providers– Gather additional information not well
represented in the survey questions• Complete review of subgroup reports• Develop draft report synthesizing
subgroup findings and recommendations
• Public comment period for draft report
• Develop final report incorporating comments
29
Connect with ODI
• ODI Project website:http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/
• Interest group mailing list:http://www.niso.org/lists/opendiscovery/
• Email ODI:[email protected]
30