Post on 12-Apr-2017
45th ARLIS/NA Conference • 8 February 2017
Roundtable LuncheonOCLC Research Library Partnership
Dennis MassieProgram Officer, OCLC Research
MEETING PHOTOS
Sandra Brooke of Princeton University
Deborah Kempe of the Frick Art Refence Library
Amy Lucker of NYU’s Institute of Fine Arts
ARLIS OCLC RLP Roundtable Attendees from the front of the room
ARLIS OCLC RLP Roundtable Attendees from the back of the room
Lunch
WELCOME
– Mangia, mangia!– Welcome – Art Discovery Group Catalogue update– OCLC RLP Update– Web Archiving Metadata Working Group – Round Robin Round-up – Nawlins style
Today’s agenda
– Mangia, mangia!– Welcome – Art Discovery Group Catalogue update– OCLC RLP Update– Web Archiving Metadata Working Group – Round Robin Round-up – Nawlins style
Today’s agenda
– Mangia, mangia!– Welcome – Art Discovery Group Catalogue update– OCLC RLP Update– Web Archiving Metadata Working Group – Round Robin Round-up – Nawlins style
Today’s agenda
ART DISCOVERY GROUP CATALOGUE -- UPDATE
LibrarianMarquand Library of Art & Archeology
Sandra L. Brooke
New and pending members– Pinacoteca di Sao Paolo, Brazil– Polimoda International Institute of Fashion Design
and Marketing, Florence– Danish National Art Library – RKD-Netherlands Institute for Art History, The
Hague– Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp– Hendrik Conscience Heritage Library, Antwerp– Bibliothèque du Musée des Arts Décoratifs, Paris– Polish Academy of Sciences Art Institute in
Warsaw, Poland– Warburg Institute, London
Features (SB)
Features (SB)
Features (SB)
Post-ADGC conference survey results: feedback
• …an extraordinarily important project in which all relevant art libraries must be represented
• …It has succeeded in being a focal point for bringing together art librarians together to discuss our profession and the future of art bibliography in general.
• …a great and outstanding project but still not completely mature in its development.
• It feels like something that only the 'big boys', ie. large academic, research and/or national museums can contribute to because of the lack of resources in many smaller, European libraries.
Post-ADGC conference survey results: needs improvement
• …too much noise in the result lists.
• …more important databases should be added (BHA, RILA, ASCO, etc.)
• …the website should be updated more frequently.
• …it should be more advertised
• …have the interface and webpages available in other languages
• ...need more non-european and non-american libraries, whose holdings would clearly enrich the catalogue. This might help to raise the attraction of the catalogue, by not only acquiring new data but also new users.
Next steps and future plans
• Develop and conduct usability study and user survey to share with community
• Add non-European and non-American art libraries
• Add more unique content, such as BHA, ASCO, Arkyves
• Work with OCLC EMEA on improvements to interface
Questions?
ADGC committee members in New Orleans this week:
Sandra Brooke (sbrooke@Princeton.edu)Deborah Kempe (kempe@frick.org)
Kathleen Salomon (ksalomon@getty.edu)
OCLC RESEARCH LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP UPDATE
OCLC Membership and Research Division
• Engage members as advocates who participate effectively in the cooperative
• Activate communities of practice that help libraries plan with confidence, position with effect and make an impact
• Generate knowledge, evidence and models that will improve libraries
News
• Launched 2015• 9,000+ members• 1,100 attendees
• 13 events • US, Canada, Puerto Rico and the UK
2016
VIAFVirtual International
Authority File
Data ScienceThe Web is the native environment of information seekers. OCLC Research recognizes that to be integrated into the Web, traditional library data must be transformed in various ways. We are analyzing the data in WorldCat and other sources to derive new meaning, insights, and services for use by libraries and others on the Web.
• Build awareness – wherefore Wikipedia?• Online training program for 500 US public library staff• Guidance from a Wikipedian-in-Residence• Learning applied in libraries and community programs• Case studies and resources published
December 2016 – May 2018
Wikipedia project
• Are you subscribed to OCLCRLP-ANNOUNCE-L?
• Have you picked an OCLC Research brain lately?–Email massied@oclc.org
Two takeaways – Partner staff
WEB ARCHIVING METADATA WORKING GROUP
Chief, Collection Management & AccessFrick Art Reference Collection
Deborah KempePlace Speaker
Photo Here
Web Archiving Metadata Guidelines Working Group
Report at OCLCRLP Update, ARLIS/NA Annual Conference, New Orleans, February 8, 2017
Deborah Kempe, WAM WG member
THE IMPERATIVE
“It is far easier to find an example of a film from 1924 than a website from 1994.”
--M.S. Ankerson. “Writing web histories with an eye on the analog past”
2012
“In the past few years, we have noticed a significant uptick in the use of web archives in mainstream media.”
--Web Sciences and Digital Libraries Research Group11 September 2016
“Web archiving operates at the frontier of capturing and preserving our cultural and historical record.”
--The British Library web archive blog14 September 2016
Archived websites often are not easily discoverable via search engines or library and archives catalogs and finding aid systems, which inhibits use.
Absence of community best practices for descriptive metadata was the most widely-shared web archiving challenging identified in two surveys:
– OCLC Research Library Partnership (2015)– Rutgers/Weber study of users of archived website (2016)
THE OBJECTIVE
Develop best practices for web archiving metadata that are community-neutral and output-neutral.
Publish a set of data elements with the scope of each defined (i.e., a data dictionary).
OCLC RESEARCH LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP WEB ARCHIVING METADATA WORKING GROUP
Working Group charge
The OCLC Research Library Partnership Web Archiving Metadata Working Group will evaluate existing and emerging approaches to descriptive metadata for archived websites and will recommend best practices to meet user needs and to ensure discoverability and consistency.
Working Group Members:25 individuals from diverse community of libraries and archives
Planned outputsA report on user needs and behaviors will inform community-wide understanding of documented needs and behaviors as evidence to underlie the metadata best practices.
A report evaluating selected open-source web archiving tools will describe metadata-related functionalities.
Best practices guidelines for descriptive metadata will address aspects of bibliographic and archival approaches.
LITERATURE REVIEWS
MethodologyTwo literature reviews: user needs and metadataSelectively gathered published literature, conference reports and notes, social media, etc.Abstracted each item
Synthesized our findings
Why study users’ needs?A necessary prelude to development of metadata best practices
We want to recommend an approach based on real user needs & behaviors
Users don’t necessarily utilize the usual discovery tools to locate archived websites
Lack of awareness that libraries harvest and archive web content
We focused on three questionsWho uses web archives?How and why do they use them?What can we do to support their needs?
Types of users identified in readings
Academic researchers (social sciences, history)
Legal researchers
Digital humanists and data analysts
Web and computer scientists
Note: We did not find sources that address other types of users.
Types of use
Reading specific web pages/sites
Data and text mining
Technology development
What we learned about user needs
Formatting and organization of data is an issue
Lack of discovery tools make access challenging
“Provenance” information is a critical missing piece
Libraries and archives need to actively engage in
outreach to users
What we learned about metadata issuesConfirmed that no appropriate set of best practices
existsData formats used include MARC, Dublin Core, MODS,
EAD Finding aidsMetadata elements used vary widely, and the same
element may have different meaningsLevel of description varies as well: Single site, collection
of sites, seed URLs …Creating metadata at scale is … impossible?
CAN WE AUTOMATE METADATA CREATION?
The community longs for the magic bullet: automatic generation of metadata from the tools used to crawl websites.
So we evaluated open-source toolsArchive-ItHeritrixHTTrackMementoNetArchiveSuiteNutchWax
Site StorySocial Feed ManagerWeb Archive DiscoveryWaybackwebrecorder.ioWebCurator
Evaluation criteriaBasic purpose of the toolWhich objects/files can it take in and generate?Which metadata profiles does it record in?Which descriptive elements are automatically generated?Which descriptive elements can be exported?What relation does it have to other tools?
Evaluation grid for webrecorder
Etc.
What we learnedWebsites generally have poor metadata (e.g., title is “home
page”)Tools have few or no metadata-related features Extractable data usually limited to title, crawl date ….Most tools capture only the site (usually in WARC format), so
metadata must be created manually/externallyA few tools enable manual input of metadata within WARC fileErgo: no magic bullet (big sigh)
DEVELOPING METADATA BEST PRACTICES
Why study existing practices?A necessary prelude to development of metadata best practices
We want to evaluate them in light of user needs
We want to borrow their best features
We want to understand how existing rules and guidelines are reflected in current practice
MethodologyAnalyze descriptive metadata standards & local guidelines
Evaluate existing records “in the wild”
Differentiate bibliographic & archival approaches
Identify issues specific to web archiving
Incorporate findings from literature reviews
Descriptive standards under review
Describing Archives: A Content Standard (SAA)
Integrating Resources: A Cataloging Manual (Program for Cooperative Cataloging, based on RDA)
Dublin Core
Local guidelines under reviewArchive-ItColumbiaGovernment Printing OfficeHarvardLibrary of CongressNew York Art Resources Consortium (NYARC)University of MichiganUniversity of Texas
Most common elements in local guidelines
Collection title*Creator/contributorDate of captureDate of content*DescriptionGenre
LanguagePublisherRights/Access conditionsSubject*TitleURL
* Only three elements that appear in all standards and local guidelines.Some RDA elements that are not often used: Extent, Place of Publication, Publisher, Source of Description, Statement of Responsibility.
Analysis of data elementsDefinitions?
Most frequently used?
Core?
Same concept, different elements?
Same element, different concepts?
Analysis of existing recordsData sources
– WorldCat– ArchiveGrid– Archive-It
Types of record– Bibliographic: MARC, Dublin Core, MODS …– Archival: MARC, finding aids
Bibliographic vs. archival descriptionBibliographic: description of a single site
– Based on RDA or Dublin Core– Includes standard bibliographic data elements– Usually does not provide context
Archival: description of a collection of sites– Based on DACS or Dublin Core– Includes narrative description, e.g. of creator, content ...– Includes context of creation and use
DILEMMAS SPECIFIC TO WEB CONTENT
Is the website creator/owner the … publisher? author? subject? all three?
Should the title be … transcribed verbatim from the head of the site? Edited to clarify the nature/scope of the site? Should it begin with "Website of the …"
Which dates are both important and feasible? Beginning/end of the site's existence? Date(s) of capture by the repository? Date of the content? Copyright?
How should extent be expressed? “1 archived
website”? "1 online resource"? "6.25 Gb"? "circa 300 websites"?
Is the institution that harvests and hosts the site the … repository? creator? publisher? selector?Does provenance refer to …the site owner? the repository that harvests and hosts the site? ways in which the site evolved?Does appraisal mean …the reason the site warrants being archived? a collection of sites named by the repository? the parts of the site that were harvested?Is it important to be clear that the resource is a website? If so, how to do so? In the extent? title? description?Which URLs should be included? Seed? access? landing page?
A sample finding aid notePhysical Characteristics and Technical Requirements note:
"The web collection documents the publicly available content of the web page, it does not archive material that is password protected or blocked due to robot txt exclusions.
Although [institution] attempts to archive the entirety of a website, certain file types will not be captured dependent on how they are embedded in the site.
This can include videos (Youtube, Vimeo, or otherwise), pdfs (including Scribd or another pdf reader), rss feeds/plug-ins (including twitter), commenting platforms (disqus, facebook), presi, images, or anything that is not native to the site."
Source: New York University
MARC21 record typesWhen coded in the MARC 21 format, should a website be considered a …
– Continuing resource? – Integrating resource? – Electronic resource? – Textual publication? – Mixed material? – Manuscript?
FORTHCOMING REPORTS
Estimated publication dates
● Tools evaluation (February/March 2017)○ With evaluation grids
● User needs (February/March 2017)○ With annotated bibliography
● Best practices guidelines (April/May 2017)○ With annotated bibliography and local guidelines evaluation grid
DISCUSS!! http://www.oclc.org/research/themes/research-collections/wam.html
ROUND ROBIN ROUND-UP 2017
Amy LuckerPlace Speaker
Photo Here HeadInstitute of Fine Arts Library
2017 OCLC Round Robin Round-Up
Who responded?
8 total; 7 museums and the Getty
Major changes this past year?
Staff changes in 8 of 8
More digital stuff in 6 of 8
Facilities:3 minor1 major1 being planned (it’s going to be big!)
What about that funding?
2 3 Grants/gifts: 5
Stay tuned for 2018
Thanks for attending!
Dennis MassieProgram Officer
massied@oclc.org
©2017. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Suggested attribution: “This work uses content from ‘OCLC Research Library Partnership Roundtable Luncheon’ © OCLC, by Dennis Massie, Sandra Brooke, Deborah Kempe and Amy Lucker, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.”