Andrew Nagy, Serials Solutions Scott Garrison, Western Michigan University  Master’s level private Catholic university  Undergrad enrollment = ~6,000  One main library  ~850,000 bibliographic.

Download Report

Transcript Andrew Nagy, Serials Solutions Scott Garrison, Western Michigan University  Master’s level private Catholic university  Undergrad enrollment = ~6,000  One main library  ~850,000 bibliographic.

Andrew Nagy, Serials Solutions
Scott Garrison, Western Michigan University

Master’s level private Catholic university

Undergrad enrollment = ~6,000

One main library
 ~850,000 bibliographic records
 ~300 subscription databases

Voyager, SFX, MetaLib
Carnegie research university
 Undergrad enrollment = 25,000+
 5 libraries serving multiple sites statewide

 1.6M+ bibliographic records
 400+ databases
 4,500+ print journals
 42,000+ online journals

Voyager, SFX, CONTENTdm, Luna

Hasn’t kept up with Web, users’ expectations

Limited customization

Antiquated, rigid search technologies

Designed for known-item searching

Libraries have set expectations, learned to
compensate accordingly

More every year in multiple packages

More alternatives, more confusion

Multiple A-Z lists to maintain, use

Interfaces change regularly

Query syntax varied, requires instruction???

“The version of ______ I teach is _______”

Allows some general, discipline searching

Mixed, incomplete results

As slow as the slower silos

If local, very network-inefficient

Many different metadata schemas, less
sophisticated searching

Vendor acquisitions, consolidation, catch-up

Open source options are emerging

Some products are still years away

All of the above leads to great FUD
dis⋅cov⋅er [di-skuhv-er]
–verb (used with object)
1. to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out;
gain sight or knowledge of (something previously
unseen or unknown): to discover America; to discover
electricity.
2. to notice or realize: I discovered I didn't have my
credit card with me when I went to pay my bill.
3. Archaic. to make known; reveal; disclose.

Searching for the 21st century

Built on 21st century technology

Highly configurable interfaces

Puts our metadata to better use

Works for OPAC and other silos but relies on
federated search, though evolving

Broad discovery of both known and
unknown items in our collections, not just in
their discipline

Be more like Google: simple, easy, fast
 fewer places to look for more kinds of content
 big recall is OK as long as most relevant is first
 get to the actual item in fewest clicks possible

Provides simple, easy access to the library’s
local collections

Supplements “classic” OPAC

Refines searches with “facets”

Includes external sources and community
features
 Wikipedia, tagging

Open source





VuFind
Blacklight
eXtensible Catalog
built on Lucene/Solr/Drupal
Commercial





AquaBrowser
WorldCat Local
Primo
Encore
Endeca





Mellon Award for Technology Collaboration
winner 2008!
ILS-agnostic, runs alongside OPAC
Works for libraries of all sizes
Uses Apache Solr and AJAX
Feature rich
 text messaging, Wikipedia author biographies,
tagging and commenting, public lists

alpha fall 2008, beta spring 2009, “1.0” fall 2009

Customized the source in a variety of ways
 SolrMARC importer, Voyager driver
 search definitions, indexes, facet display

Usability tested 2008-2009

Still tweaking our indexes, relevance

“1.2” version coming spring 2010

Has helped us around limitations in Voyager

Recall => huge adjustment for librarians

Has prompted us to reconsider how we work

Themes from usability testing
 fewer failed searches
 user less likely to give up searching
 users curious about things like tagging

Librarians, users
 will use Amazon to find and discover
 will use Google to find and discover
 will use del.icio.us to find and discover

Then they use the library catalog/website to
find out if the library has it (link resolver
buttons help even if it’s in five silos)








Local index of collections: MARC, OAI, etc.
Simple, elegant interfaces
Customizable
Mashups
Tuned relevancy ranking
Facets
Citation management tools
Links to value-adds like ILL, recommenders

Why only local collections?

What about article content?

What if users want to discover items outside
their discipline-specific databases?

Can’t we do better than federated search?
Web-scale dis⋅cov⋅er [web skeyl di-skuhv-er]
- adjective-noun pairing
Harvesting, ingesting, and normalizing an extensive
amount of container and subcontainer metadata in a
scalable infrastructure that many institutions can share
rather than traditional “hosted services”.

Unifies local and subscription content
 digital or physical books, e-journal articles,
databases, etc.
 library catalog, publishers, open access, etc.
Web-scale repository
 Highly tuned relevancy
 Pluggable API for “shopping mall” access


March 2009: became beta partner

April 2009: delivered catalog records

May 2009: had Summon instance

June 2009: used internally, refined e holdings

Summer 2009: kept improving

September 2009: linked to it on our site

Fall 2009: user testing
Even bigger adjustment for library staff
 Has reminded us of record problems
 Shows known OpenURL target problems
 How to present it along with VuFind?

 the NGC is a subset of the W-sD
 we’ve already tweaked the NGC pretty far
 W-sD’s interface is similar to NGC
 how to incorporate link resolver data?

Keep the NGC for containers and W-sD for
everything else
 use limits in query string to exclude containers
 means two separate, different interfaces to
choose from

Use your NGC’s interface to query the W-sD’s
index
 radio button for containers vs. non?
 unified results, or tabs?
 limits you to NGC’s interface? Toggle?
 opportunity to tweak the NGC closer to W-sD
 subjects and other facets likely vary between
them

Use only the W-sD and scrap the NGC
 impractical after heavy NGC investment and
adjustment

Use the APIs you have for the NGC, W-sD,
and link resolver and build your own mashup
of all of them
 requires a heavy investment of resources
 involves merging functional requirements for
three separate systems into one
 requires very careful project management,
keeping scope creep, long tail issues to a
minimum
questions?
[email protected]
[email protected]