Transcript Standards Development: An Overview

Discovery and Delivery:
Innovations and Challenges
Introducing the
Open Discovery Initiative
Marshall Breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
http://twitter.com/mbreeding
Sunday, June 24, 2012
1
Library search and discovery
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
2
Evolution of library search
•
•
•
•
•
Card Catalogs
Online Catalogs
Federated search tools
Next-generation library catalogs
Index-based discovery services
3
Online Catalog
Search:
Search Results
ILS Data
Scope of Search
• Books, Journals, and
Media at the Title Level
• Not in scope:
– Articles
– Book Chapters
– Digital objects
Discovery Interfaces
Search:
ILS Data
Digital
Collections
Local
Index
ProQuest
Search Results
Federated
Search
Engine
EBSCOhost
…
MLA
Bibliography
ABC-CLIO
Real-time query
and responses
Index-based Discovery
ILS Data
Digital
Collections
Search Results
Consolidated Index
Search:
Web Site
Content
Institutional
Repositories
Aggregated
Content
packages
…
E-Journals
Reference
Sources
Pre-built harvesting
and indexing
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
Facilitate a healthy
ecosystem among
discovery service providers,
libraries and content
providers
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
Some Key Areas for Publishers
1.
2.
3.
4.
Expose content widely
Trust
“Fair” Linking
Usage reporting
OPEN DISCOVERY INITIATIVE
14
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
Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt University
Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University
Laura Morse, Harvard University
Ken Varnum, University of Michigan
Anya Arnold, Orbis Cascade Alliance
Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon
Lucy Harrison, College Center for Library
Automation (D2D liaison/observer)
Michele Newberry, Florida Virtual Campus
Publishers
Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications
Beth LaPensee, ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico
Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters
Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc
Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press
Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka
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)
17
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 Adoption
20
Timeline
Milestone
Target Date
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
Status
21
ODI Stakeholder Survey
• Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4,
2012
• Each subgroup developed questions
pertinent to it area of concern
22
Survey Responses
•
•
•
•
782 Librarians
74 Publishers
15 Discovery Services
871 Total
23
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 ecosystem
27
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