Transcript Standards Development: An Overview

NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services:
Transforming Access to Library Resources
Update on the NISO
Open Discovery Initiative
Marshall Breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
http://twitter.com/mbreeding
November 20, 2013
1
Index-based Discovery
(2009- present)
Search Results
Usagegenerated
Data
Customer
Profile
Digital
Collections
Consolidated Index
Search:
ILS Data
Web Site
Content
Institutional
Repositorie
s
Aggregated
Content
packages
…
Open
Access
E-Journals
Reference
Sources
Pre-built harvesting
and indexing
Bento Box Discovery Model
ILS Data
VuFind / Blacklight
Search Results
Web Site
Content
Digital
Collections
Institutional
Repositories
Consolidated Index
Search:
Aggregated
Content
packages
Open
Access
E-Journals
Central index &
search functionality
Web-scale search problem
ILS Data
Digital
Collections
Search Results
Consolidated
Index
Search:
Web Site
Content
Institutional
Repositorie
s
Aggregated
Content
packages
…
E-Journals
???
Problem in how to deal with resources
not provided to ingest into
consolidated index
Pre-built
harvesting and
Non
indexing
Participating
Content
Sources
Discovery Concerns
• 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
5
Heterogeneous Representations
• Content objects represented by
– MARC Records for books and journal titles
– Citation data for articles
– Full text for articles
– Full text for books
– Abstracts and Indexing products
– Other metadata or enrichment
Discovery index issues
• Citations or structured metadata provide
key data to power search & retrieval and
faceted navigation
• Indexing full-text of content amplifies
access
• Important to understand what is indexed
– Currency, dates covered, full-text or citation
– Many other factors
7
Library Perspective
• Strategic investments in subscriptions
• Strategic investments in Discovery Solutions to
provide access to their collections
• 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 coverage and
performance of competing index-based discovery
products
Collection Coverage?
• To work effectively, discovery services need to
cover comprehensively the body of content
represented in library collections
• Why do some content providers not participate?
• How are A&I resources represented?
• 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
Some Key Areas for Publishers
1. Expose content appropriately
2. Trust that access to material will be
controlled consistent with subscription
terms
3. “Fair” Linking
4. Materials not disadvantaged or
underrepresented in library discovery
implementations
5. Usage reporting
ODI context
Facilitate a healthy
ecosystem among
discovery service providers,
libraries and content
providers
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
13
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)
14
ODI Timeline
Milestone
Target Date
Appointment of working group
Dec 2011
Approval of charge and initial work plan
Mar 2012
Agreement on process and tools
Jun 2012
Completion of information gathering
Jan 2013
Completion of initial draft
Jun 2013
Completion of final draft
Sep 2013
Public Review Period commences
Sep 2013
Status
15
Balance of Constituents
Libraries
Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt University
Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University
Laura Morse, Harvard University
Ken Varnum, University of Michigan
Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon
Lucy Harrison, College Center for Library
Automation (D2D liaison/observer)
Michele Newberry
Publishers
Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications
Roger Schonfeld, ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico
Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters
Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc
Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press
Service Providers
Jenny Walker, Ex Libris Group
John Law, Serials Solutions
Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services
David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)
Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)
16
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
18
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 Adoption
19
ODI Stakeholder Survey
• Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4,
2012
• Each subgroup developed questions
pertinent to it area of concern
20
Survey Responses
•
•
•
•
782 Librarians
74 Publishers
15 Discovery Services
871 Total
21
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
22
Librarian’s preferred Use
statistics
• Total Number of Searches
• List of search query terms
• Referring URLs
23
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%
24
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 ecosystem
25
ODO Survey Report
• Issued January 2013
• 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
26
ODI Final Report
• Issued for public Comment
• Comment period closed November 18,
2013
27
Report Topics
• Introduction
– In scope / out of scope
– Terms and definitions
• Evolution of Discovery
– Related initiatives
• Recommendations
28
General Recommendations
• Create oversight group
• Actions for content providers and discovery
service creators to assert conformance
29
Recommendations for
Content Providers
• Content providers should make items
available to discovery service providers.
– Basic: Citations: specific metadata elements
– Enhanced: additional metadata + Full-text
• Provide to Libraries: disclosure of
participation in discovery services
30
Recommendations for
Discovery Service Creators
• Disclosure of content indexed
– Specific metadata fields
• Fair / non-biased linking
– Mechanisms for libraries to choose versions
preferred for linking
– Annual statement regarding neutrality of
linking or relevance
– Provide links to A&I services when applicable
• Usage statistics to Publishers
– Searches
31
Report Highlights
• What is in and out of Scope
– Focus on content available to be indexed
– Quantity and form of content (citations /
fulltext)
– Metadata fields contributed
– Role of A&I products
– Controlled Vocabularies
• Out of Scope
– Relevancy algorithms
– User Interface issues
32
Technical recommendations
• Transfer of data from content providers to
discovery service creators
– Make use of existing standards and protocols
when possible
33
Current work Next Steps
• Review comments received
– Chairs + Workgroup members
– Make any needed revisions
– Submit for final approval by NISO D2D
34
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]
35