Transcript Library Bibliographic Services for the 21st Century The

Pathway to the Future:
Library Bibliographic Services
st
for the 21 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 MARC
01291nam 22002774a 4500
00113089236
00520040304134833.0
008030211s2004 enk b
001 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 2004
08200 $a 213 $2 21 1001 $a Shanks, Niall, $d 195924510 $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
Non-ILS Metadata Systems
Electronic
research
databases
Archival
Systems
Digital
Library
Collections
Silos
Everywhere!
Institutional
Repositories
Pathfinders
Course Management Systems
Libraries Need Disparate
Metadata to Work Together
ONIX & MARC
DUBLIN CORE & VRA
A Librarian’s Fantasy
MARC
ONIX
Dublin
Core
VRA
Core
Examples of Libraries Moving
into the Future
I Enhancing Search and Retrieval
•
•
•
•
I.1
I.2
I.3
I.4
•
•
•
•
I.5
I.6
I.7
I.8
Provide users with direct access to item
Provide recommender features
Support customization/personalization
Offer alternative actions for failed or suspect
searches
Offer better navigation of large sets of search results
Deliver bibliographic services where the users are
Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text
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
UCB
UCLA
UCSC
UCD
UCSF
CDL
UCR
UCSB
UCR
UCSD
UCI
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