Pathway to the Future:Library Bibliographic Services

for the 21st Century

Amy Kautzman UCB

Terry Ryan UCLA

University of California Overview

• 10 Campuses

• 10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, etc.)

• Melvyl (UC union catalog)

• SCP + merge algorithm

• Ex Libris ERMS + SFX

• Digital repositories

Bibliographic Services Task Force• John Riemer, (Chair, UCLA)

Head, Cataloging and Metadata Center

• Luc Declerck (UCSD) Associate Univ. Librarian, Technology and Technical

Services• Amy Kautzman (UCB)

Head of Research and Collections: Doe/Moffitt Libraries

• Patti Martin (CDL) Bibliographic Services Manager

• Terry Ryan (UCLA)Associate University Librarian for the UCLA Electronic

Library

BSTF Charge

• Inventory the end-user services supported by our biblio. processing data. Articulate the problems that need to be solved.

• Develop a vision and design principles.

• Analyze opportunities and costs and benefits.

• Deliver a report and develop an implementation road map.

Design Principles

• Work Smarter/Rationalize Workflow and Data Flow

• Resuscitate Metadata• Provide User-Centered Search Services• Get Users to the Content• Rethink System Architecture to Focus on

Services, not Systems• Support Continuous Assessment &

Improvement

In the (almost) Beginning

Thanks to MARC01291nam 22002774a 4500 00113089236 00520040304134833.0 008030211s2004 enk b001 0 eng 010   $a 2003042916 020   $a 0195161998 (alk. paper) 035   $a (Sirsi) i0195161998 040   $a DLC $c DLC $d DLC $d OrLoB-B 042   $a pcc 049   $x jek 05000 $a BS651 $b .S54 200408200 $a 213 $2 21 1001  $a Shanks, Niall, $d 1959- 24510 $a God, the devil, and Darwin : $b a critique of intelligent design theory / $c Niall Shanks. 260   $a Oxford ; $a New York : $b Oxford University Press, $c 2004. 300   $a xiii, 273 p. ; $c 22 cm. 504   $a Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-268) and index. 50500 $t Foreword / $r Richard Dawkins -- $t Introduction: The Many Designs of the Intelligent Design Movement -- $g

1. $t The Evolution of Intelligent Design Arguments -- $g 2. $t Darwin and the Illusion of Intelligent Design -- $g 3. $t Thermodynamics and the Origins of Order -- $g 4. $t Science and the Supernatural -- $g 5. $t The Biochemical Case for Intelligent Design -- $g 6. $t The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design -- $t Conclusion: Intelligent Designs on Society.

596   $a 1

The Library ILS

Ar chi val Syst ems

Ar chi val Ar chi val Syst emsSyst ems

El ect r oni cr esear chdat abases

El ect r oni cEl ect r oni cr esear chr esear chdat abasesdat abases

I nst i t ut i onal Reposi t or i es

I nst i t ut i onal I nst i t ut i onal Reposi t or i esReposi t or i es

Pat hfi nder sPat hfi nder sPat hfi nder sDi gi t alLi br ar y

Col l ect i ons

Di gi t alDi gi t alLi br ar yLi br ar y

Col l ect i onsCol l ect i ons

Non-ILS Metadata Systems

Silos Everywhere!

Silos Everywhere!

Course Management Systems

Libraries Need Disparate Metadata to Work Together

ONIX & MARC

DUBLIN CORE & VRA

A Librarian’s Fantasy

ONIXONIX

MARCMARC

DublinDublinCoreCore

VRAVRACoreCore

Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

I Enhancing Search and Retrieval

• I.1 Provide users with direct access to item • I.2 Provide recommender features • I.3 Support customization/personalization• I.4 Offer alternative actions for failed or suspect searches • I.5 Offer better navigation of large sets of search

results• I.6 Deliver bibliographic services where the users are• I.7 Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text• I.8 Provide better searching for non-Roman materials

II Rearchitecting the OPAC

• II.1 Create a single catalog interface for all

of UC

• II.2 Support searching across the entire

bibliographic information space

III Adopting New Cataloging Practices

• Rearchitect cataloging workflow– Eliminate duplication– Agree on single set of policies– Implement a single data store for UC

• Select appropriate metadata scheme

• Manually enrich metadata in important areas

• Automate metadata creation

CDL

UCLA

UCSF

UCSC

UCR

UCB

UCI

UCD

UCSB

UCR

UCSD

The Report Clearly Strikes a Chord

• Immediate interest within the University of California

• Lots of community reaction– Report hit the blogs– Interviews by the Library press– Invitations to present at conferences– Guest lectures at library schools

Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession

• Gives voice to some popular opinions

– Our services must be user driven

– Libraries need to act boldly if we are to reclaim our role in the information space

– Libraries still have a unique value-add to offer

Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession

• Gives voice to some strongly held but controversial perspectives

– Our assumptions about metadata should be re-examined

– Metadata practices need to have proven value

– An intuitive interface is not by definition “dumbed down” or anti-scholarly

BSTF Timeline

• Dec 04: University Librarians requested a bibliographic services review

• Feb 05: SOPAG planned exploratory mtg

• March 05: BSTF Charge drafted

• May 05: 1st meeting of BSTF

• Aug 05: Interim report sent to SOPAG

• Dec 05: Final report delivered

• March 06: Campus comments due

Process for Consultation

• Systemwide groups and campuses asked to discuss the report and provide feedback

• All asked to respond to the same set of questions

• Mix of forced-choice and open-ended questions

Questions

• Which 3-5 major recommendations are most important?

• Which specific recommendations should we do first?

• Are there any recommendations to add?

• Are there any recommendations we should NOT do?

Questions

• Which option for a single OPAC should we pursue?

• Which organizational and architecture options for re-architecting cataloging workflow should we pursue?

• Any other comments on next steps?

• Anything else we should be doing to improve bibliographic services?

Preliminary UC Results:Popular recommendations

• I.1 Direct access to item

• I.4 Offer alternatives for failed searches

• I.5 Better navigation of large result sets

• I.6 Deliver services where the users are

• I.8 Better searching for non-Roman

• II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC

• II.2 Search across the info space

• III.1Re-architect cataloging workflow

Preliminary UC Results:Recommendations we love to hate • III.2.c Consider abandoning controlled

vocabulary for topical subjects

• III.1.a Option 2: consolidate cataloging

into one or two centers across the

state

Surprises? Not really

• Intelligent & well-intentioned people can disagree– Not all agree that change is imperative– All agree that we need to preserve our values

while changing practices, but not all agree on what is a value and what is a practice

• Many of the underlying concepts are not well understood without explanation

• Many can’t endorse a recommendation if they don’t know how it will be funded.

Surprises!

• Fear of making the system “too easy”– “If they don’t need to ask us how to use it, we

lose a teachable moment”– “If the system looks like Google, the rich

diversity of our collections is lost”

• Belief that only undergraduates are demanding change– “Undergraduates need an easy system but

true scholars like to see the complexity”

Surprises!

• Fear that the new system envisioned will offer less flexibility than our current systems– “A Google-like search box may work fine if

you just need a few good things, but won’t support scholarly research”

– “Our users and collections are too diverse to be served by a single solution.”

Moving from vision to decision

• Mar 06 - Preliminary feedback received

• Apr 06 - Analyze feedback and provide

report to the University Librarians

• Jun 06 - University Librarians decide on

actions

• Summer 06 - Task Force reconvenes to

develop action plans