NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services:

Transforming Access to Library ResourcesNovember 20, 2013

Speakers: Lorcan Dempsey, Amy Hoseth, Cody Hanson, Michael Kucsak,

Athena Hoeppner, Matthew Reidsma, Marshall Breeding

http://www.niso.org/news/events/2013/virtual/discovery

NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services:

Transforming Access to Library Resources

Agenda

11:00 a.m. – 11:10 a.m. – Introduction

Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO11:10 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. – Selecting a Web-scale Discovery Service: Evaluating the Options

Amy Hoseth, Coordinator for Onsite Services, Colorado State University Libraries

**12:00 p.m. – 12:45 p.m. – Keynote: Library Discovery: Past, Present and Some Futures

Lorcan Dempsey, Vice President, OCLC Research and Chief Strategist

** Due to technical difficulties, the Keynote appears second in the order of panelists.

12:45 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. – Lunch Break

1:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. – Why Web-scale Discovery Means the End of Build vs. Buy

Cody Hanson, Acting Director, Web Development, University of Minnesota University Libraries

2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. – Implementation: Delivering the Goods

Michael Kucsak, Director of Library Systems and Technology, University of North Florida

2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. – Zen and the Art of Discovery Maintenance

Athena Hoeppner, Electronic Resources Librarian, University of Central Florida Libraries

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. – Afternoon Break

3:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. – The Library with a Thousand Databases: Web Scale Discovery and The Hero's Journey

Matthew Reidsma, Web Services Librarian, Grand Valley State University Libraries

3:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. – Update on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative

Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant and co-chair, NISO Open Discovery Initiative

4:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. – Conference Roundtable

Presenters return for a Q&A discussion lead by Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO

Selecting a Web-scale Discovery Service: Evaluating the Options

Amy Hoseth

Colorado State University Libraries

November 20, 2013

About Colorado State University

• Land-grant institution located in Fort Collins, Colorado • Approximately 26,000 students, including 22,000

undergraduate and 4,000 graduate students• The CSU Libraries includes Morgan Library on the main

campus, and a small branch library on the veterinary campus• Carnegie Research University; ARL library

Web-scale research at CSUL

• Summer 2009: Library / IT Task Force makes recommendations• Fall 2009: Library dean convenes Discovery Tools Committee

• Six members represent key library departments: Tech services, metadata, collections and contracts, college liaisons, and access services

• Committee charge: Explore Web-scale discovery tools currently available, and recommend plan and budget for moving forward

Review process

• Four products were evaluated:• EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS)• Primo Central (Ex Libris)• Summon (Serials Solutions)• WorldCat Local

Research Process

• RFIs issued to vendors• Vendor presentations at CSU• Other research: conferences, site visits, phone calls• Six month process, start to finish

Comparing products

• Identifying key criteria for evaluation was first challenge• Useful, synonymous information needed for each product• Committee developed a “comparison matrix” to gather, report, and

compare information on each product• Matrix included 40+ points of comparison• Ultimately, the matrix could be distilled into five key criteria

Five key criteria

1. Overall goal/purpose for acquiring a discovery tool

2. Cost

3. Coverage/content

4. Usability

5. Technology issues

1. Goal/Purpose

• What will the Web-scale tool allow users to accomplish?• What is the purpose of this tool for your library?• How will it work with existing resources?• Who are your users, and what kind of tool do they need?

2. Cost

• What are the costs associated with each product?• How will the implementation of this tool affect other

subscriptions?• Is consortium purchase/pricing an option?• Costs for local staffing and support

3. Coverage/content

• What existing resources are covered by the new tool?• How does it manage handoffs to native databases and

resources?• What resources are not indexed or included, and how will

users access them?

4. Usability

• Need to conduct both formal and informal testing• “Test drive” implementations as much as possible• Key elements to consider include:

• User interface• Faceting• Relevancy ranking• Search options• Customization options

5. Technology issues

• How much local support is required for the Web-scale tool to run smoothly?

• How well does it integrate with existing library applications?

• Is the API customizable? Is it robust?• Is the Web-scale discovery tool mobile-friendly? Does it

effectively serve users with disabilities?

Other practical recommendations

• Involve individuals from across the library in your overall analysis

• Conduct a thorough, methodical review of each product• Contact institutions that are already using these products

for their advice and feedback

Outcome at CSU

• Final report (June 2010) identified one web-scale tool as the product most likely to meet our needs

• Ultimately, no purchase was made• Concerns about cost• Questions about integration of tool with existing resources• Products still new, maturing

• CSUL is now convening another committee to revisit the possibility of purchasing a Web-scale discovery tool

Questions?

Amy Hoseth

Coordinator for Onsite Services

Colorado State University Libraries

970-491-4326

amy.hoseth@colostate.edu

past, present and some futures@LorcanD

Lorcan Dempsey

20 November 2013

NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming Access to Library Resources

Library discovery:

Scope

Pretty general

20

Past: Some driversPresent: Some responsesFuture: Some directions

21

Drivers 1

The user environment

The example of visitors and residents

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, David White, Donna Lanclos, and Erin Hood. 2013. Meeting the Needs of Digital Visitors and Residents: Developing Engagement with Institutional Services Educause Annual Conference, 15-18 October 2013, Anaheim, California (USA).http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/vandr/presentations/meeting-the-needs-of-digital-visitors-educause-2013.pptx Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Donna Lanclos, and Erin Hood. 2013. "I Find Google a Lot Easier Than Going To the Library Website." Imagine Ways to Innovate and Inspire Students to Use the Academic Library. ACRL 2013: Imagine, Innovate, Inspire, 10-13 April 2013, Indianapolis, Indiana (USA).http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/activities/vandr/presentations/acrl-vandr2013.pptx 

22

Convenient Doesn’t Always Mean Simple

“It’s convenience. It’s the immediacy of it.” (UKF3, Experiencing, Male, Age 52, Artist & Technical Support)

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dubpics/8685963533/

“...Google doesn’t judge you.”

(UKF3, Male, Age 52)

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cubmundo/6184306158/

“I just type it into Google and see what comes up.” (UKS2)

“It’s like a taboo I guess with all teachers, they just all say – you know,

when they explain the paper they always say, “Don’t use Wikipedia.” (USU7, Female,

Age 19)

Learning Black Market

Image: http://wp.me/pLtlj-fH

Then: Resources were scarce and time was abundant

Now: Resources are abundant and time is scarce

Convenience is an important value.

26

Drivers 2:The service environment

“How can building a website be so difficult?”

27

28

Until recently …..

… library websites were providing a very thin layer of integration over two sets of heterogeneous resources, ….

…which map more to legacy technical and business issues than to user behaviours.

29

1. Systems

Catalog/ILS

Repository

Metasearch

A-Z lists

2. Databases

Legacy database boundaries map more to historically evolved publisher configurations and business decisions than to user needs or behaviors.

Resolver

30

Full text publishers

A&I publishers

Aggregators

Discovery layerproviders

Driver 3:The network environment

Stuck in the middle

31

Webscale: operating at the scale of the web. We have seen many service providers emerge in recent years which operate at webscale. Facebook, Amazon, Expedia, Etsy.

They concentrate capacity in platforms whose benefits can be broadly shared. The platform supports the aggregation of data and infrastructure at scale.

Additionally, many of these services build strong communities - networks of participants who communicate, share, or trade on the platform.

Webscale and personal go together.

Webscale and personal go together.

The institution is the squeezed middle?

Researchers prefer to adopt open source and social media technologies that are available in the public domain rather than institutional license-based applications ….. First the social media technologies facilitate networking and community building. Second, researchers prefer to use technologies that will enable them access to resources and their own materials beyond their institution-based PhD research.

e.g. Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote“

Then: users built their workflow around the library.

Now: the library must build its services around its users workflow.

38

Users value convenience.

Library destinations fragmented and demand too much work (cognitive and mechanical).

The institution is being squeezed between the webscale and the personal. Have to get into workflows.

39

Users value convenience.

Library destinations fragmented and demand too much work (cognitive and mechanical).

The institution is being squeezed between the webscale and the personal. Have to get into workflows.

40

Discovery layer

The challenge of discoverability

Some responses

41

Some responses

42

1. Systems integration – unified discovery and unified backoffice workflows

2. Website integration – an integrated experience

3. Make discovery more like web search4. Discoverability – a decentered network

presence

43

1. Systems integration – unified discovery and unified backoffice workflows

2. Website integration – an integrated experience

3. Make discovery more like web search

4. Discoverability – a decentered network presence

Worldshare MS ALMA Sierra Intota Kuali Ole

Worldshare MS ALMA Sierra Intota Kuali Ole

Worldcat Local Primo EDS Summon

(Partial) systems integration

Cloud-based.

Workflow integration across purchased, licensed, digital?

Central index.

Best-of-breed vs Trend to single supplier ecosystems?

Based on data from Marshall Breeding’s Lib-Web-Cats technology profiles, August 2013. N = 881Created by Constance Malpas, OCLC Research, using the Sankey template from Bruce McPherson.

US Academic Libraries

48

1. Systems integration – unified discovery and unified backoffice workflows

2. Website integration – an integrated experience

3. Make discovery more like web search4. Discoverability – a decentered network

presence

49

Some examples ..

• Content management systems

• Resource guides

• Locally controlled search container– VuFind– Blacklight

• Discovery systems– A unified view– Move work from

user to system

50

1. Systems integration – unified discovery and unified backoffice workflows

2. Website integration – an integrated experience

3. Make discovery more like web search4. Discoverability – a decentered network

presence

“Simple” search box to find everything

52

“Simple” search box

Refine results

53

“Simple” search box

Refine results

A focus on fulfilment …

54

1. Systems integration – unified discovery and unified backoffice workflows

2. Website integration – an integrated experience

3. Make discovery more like web search4. Discoverability – a decentered network

presence

John Doe University Library

Network Presence

John Doe University

Library

Cloud Sourced

Decoupled Communication

External Syndication

Website

Youtube

Decoupled Communication

Flickr

Twitter

Facebook

Blogs

Google

Knowledgebase

Resolver

Discovery

Cloud Sourced

Libguides

Digital Archive

External Syndication

Services

Data

RSS

Metadata

Europeana

WorldCat

Scirus

Ethos

ArchivesGrid

Suncat

Summon

Jorum

Linked Data (Catalog)

OAI-PMH (Dspace)

Z39.50

Library APIs

Proxy Widgets

Proxy ToolbarMobilepp

Discovery

Catalogue

Dspace

Blogs

http://blogs.bgsu.edu/librarysleevefacing/2012/08/15/bookends/

Creating conversations around collections:

Sleevefacing at Bowling Green State Univ

‘Discoverability’ needs to be managed in parallel with ‘discovery’ …

Get into research and learning workflows …

60

Directions: some futures

61

Full library discoveryFulfillment at the point of needRanking, relating, recommendingOutside-in and inside-outFrom strings to things

62

Full library discovery

65Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4563photo/3889124590/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Bento Box?

Ranking?

CollectionsResource GuidesWebsitePeopleEvents…

Ranking, relating, recommending

Specialising to institution/person

66

Examples

• Analytics– Improve user

experience– Improve

management decisions

• Recommendations

• Reading lists/course reserves

• Specialise to courses

67

Fulfillment at the point of need …

Buy, borrow, connect, …Demand driven acquisition …

68

69

Outside-in vs inside-out

Outside in Bought, licensed

Discovery layer

Aim: to discover, to fulfill

Inside outInstitutional assets: special collections, research and learning materials (IR), institutional records, …

Aim: to *have* discovered … discoverability

From strings to things

The social graph

Three benefits acc to Google:

1.Find the right thing2.Get the best summary3.Go deeper and broader

76

Examples

• Include ‘cards’ about:– People– Works– Institutions

• Linked data backbones?

• VIAF

77Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martindo/5975419889/

Discoverability

Discovery

©2013 OCLC. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Suggested attribution: “This work uses content from [presentation title] © OCLC, used under a Creative Commons Attribution license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/”

Thank you@LorcanD

Delivering the Goods

Implementing Web Scale

Michael Kucsak

Director of Library Systems and Technology

University of North Florida

NISO Virtual Conference November 20, 2013

Promises

• Google-like searching• ~98.5% coverage of

library content• One click access to

full text content• Everything is better

with <insert product here>!!!

3 Keys to a Successful Implementation

1. Support from management

2. Clearly defined goals3. Diverse

implementation team

Support from Management

“We will be using the EDS first and foremost when we search; we will be teaching it first in classes; we will be using it first in one on one instructions; and we will be promoting it at the new service desk. And, we will keep very good statistics on all facets of the pilot.”

An email to all library faculty

from the Associate Dean of the Library

Clearly Defined Goals1. Primary search tool by September

30, 20112. Include all physical and covered

eResources3. Seamless integration with our

web site and EZProxy4. Successful link to full text ≥90%5. Staff trained6. Problem reporting process

Diverse Implementation Team• Acquisitions•

• Cataloging•

• Instruction•

• Reference•

• Library Systems•

• Information Technology•

• Florida Center for Library Automation

•

• EBSCO Support•

•

Changes to Make it Work

• Dropped Serials Solutions 360 for EBSCO’s LinkSource and A-Z– Reduce finger pointing

• Dropped ProQuest for EBSCO Databases– Increase reliability of full-text links

Initial Challenges

Initial Challenges

Initial Challenges

Simple Design Philosophy

Connect our patrons to the knowledge they seek with as little

effort on their part as possible

Solutions: Always Provide a link

Solutions: Always provide an option

Solutions: Always provide an option

Solutions: Always provide an option

Solution: Integrate core tools

Solution: Integrate core tools

Web Scale vs ILS1. Eliminate MARC serial data loads2. ILS access through a widget in the

EDS results page (auto-populated)

Web Scale vs ILS1. Eliminate MARC serial data loads2. ILS access through a widget in the

EDS results page (auto-populated)3. Direct upload of e-content into

EDS NOT ILS

Web Scale vs ILS1. Eliminate MARC serial data loads2. ILS access through a widget in the

EDS results page (auto-populated)3. Direct upload of e-content into

EDS NOT ILS4. EDS as primary search tool on

library home page

Testing1. Inspected thousands of search

results2. Analyzed individual content

provider reliability3. Examined link resolver

performance4. Confirmed remote access

performance

Achieved 90% reliability!

Training1. EBSCO provided onsite training2. Library Systems/Instruction

trained staff about the mechanics3. Library Instruction trained

librarians, students and faculty on how to use the tool

Marketing

Blackboard IntegrationBlackboard Home Screen

Blackboard Integration

Multi-Touch Surface

Summary

• Links to full text• Auto-populate ILLiad• Ulrichs integration• Union catalog widget• Guest default/JIT EZProxy• Available in the Library by

default• Commitment to EDS

• EBSCO link resolver/A-Z• EBSCO content• EBSCO marketing• Eliminated MARC loads• Pushed reliable vendors

to the top• Made vendors work for

their $$$

Fruits of our Labor• 107% increase full text

downloads• >40% reduction in ILL• Collaborated with CS student

senior projects• Opportunities to build

partnerships• EBSCO Success story• Jacksonville BizJournal Tech

Innovation Award

Thank you

Questions?

Michael Kucsak

Director of Library Systems and Technology

University of North Florida

NISO Virtual Conference November 20, 2013

Zen and the Art of WSD

Maintenance

Web-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming

Access to Library Resources NISO Virtual Conference

Athena Hoeppner20 November 2013

UCF’s Web Scale Discovery Journey

Soft launch was June 2012• Merged bib records from 11 libraries• Added new content providers to the central index• Implemented LinkSource and AtoZ• Migrated EZproxy to a new server• Upgraded to SFX v4 on a new server• Moved digital collections to a new server• Rolled onto the newest version of EDS• Created API to search and embed FT links in Canvas course system

Implementation Questionnaires

Some choices we live not only once but a thousand times over, remembering them for the rest of our lives.

-Richard Bach

Expected Maintenance

• Branding• Central Index Contents• MARC loads• OAI loads • ILS integration• OpenURL and Links• Search forms• APIs• Any Customizations

Tip: Look Under the Hood

• Searching• Databases • Viewing Results• Linking• Branding

Maintenance Team

Cataloging Systems Index ContentLocal • Kim • Joel

• Bobby• Subject librarians

FLVC • Gerald• Jean

• Ned• Mark

• Claire

EBSCO • Brian • Brian • Brian

Technical SupportGreeting Line

• Brian • Jessica• Elan• Joseph• Tyler• Ellini• Thomas• Monica• Susan• Sherry• Jillian• Heather

Staying InformedDiscussion List• New content• New features• Problem sharing• Grousing

Wiki• Content details• Partners spreadsheet• Technical specs• Innovative

applications

Support Pages• FAQs• Common approaches

Still Calm?

Expect Problems

• Embedded search form asking for login• Shows MARC from other libraries• Prefer different relevancy rankings• English limiter eliminates results• Auto-enabling new content providers• Duplicate records showing• Dedupping algorithm changes hit count• Multiple full text/content links showing• Full text links showing from 500 fields• Bad data from content providers• Insufficient data makes bad OpenURL• Malformed DOIs from content providers• Slow response time• Duplicate/multiple login prompts• 50+ authors showing in the brief view

• Full text HTML showing in the brief view• Punctuation and stop words causing

searches to fail• EBSCOnet renewals turned off full text in

AtoZ and LinkSource.• Sub-locations not showing for catalog

items• Myriad cookies, pop-up, browser and

end-user setting problems• Myriad article access problems - EZproxy

dropped, host config problem, dropped from aggregator, incorrect holdings threshold set, etc.

1.5 Year’s Worth of Problems

KEEP

CALM AND

INVESTIGATE

KEEP

CALM AND

REPLICATE

KEEP

CALM AND

COMMUNICATE

KEEP

CALM AND

MITIGATE

KEEP

CALM AND

ALLEVIATE

Problem Response

• Provide problem-report forms and options

• Enlist a core team to respond and investigate

• Replicate reported problems

• Communicate the problem in detail to the vendor

• Change the system to mitigate unresolvable problems

• Fix resolvable problems

Example Maintenance and Problem Response

• Purchased 12 Alexander Street Press video collections. Woot!

• Checked EBSCOadmin for option to turn on indexing. It’s possible, BUT…

• Checked options for linking to videos• Discussed options with Brian at EBSCO• Loaded ASP MARC into the catalog

(thanks, Kim!)• Nightly update loaded the new MARC

into our EDS• Checked 856s links in EDS –

PROBLEM!

Say Old Man, Do You Play the Fiddle?

Say Old Man, Do You Play the Fiddle?

• Checked representation in local view of catalog• Captured images of the screen in EDS• Reported problem to Kim, Gerald, Brian, with permalink and

images• Brian passed the problem to a catalog specialist• Kim explained the 856 subfields involved• Gerald fixed the export and EBSCO fixed the processing

It’s like music to my ears!

Beyond Maintenance

PlacardsProfiles for subjects and

content typesDiscipline limitorsSpecialized widgets for

subjects and content typesRevamp header and footerLoad LibGuides as a

content sourceShibbolethMore APIs

WSD Truisms

Everything is More Visible

Flaws are Magnified

Everything is Connected

Things Can Get Tangled

Tip: Cultivate a Team

Tip: Create a Sandbox

Tip: Seek Simplicity

Finis.

Web-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming Access to Library Resources NISO Virtual Conference

20 November 2013

Athena Hoeppnerathean@ucf.edu

@cybrgrl

142

Update on the NISOOpen Discovery

InitiativeMarshall Breedinghttp://www.librarytechnology.org/http://twitter.com/mbreeding

November 20, 2013

NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming Access to Library Resources

Index-based Discovery

Search:

Digital Collections

Web Site Content

Institutional

Repositories

…E-Journals

Reference Sources

Search Results

Pre-built harvesting and indexing

Consolidated Index

ILS Data

Aggregated Content packages

(2009- present)

Usage-generate

dData

Customer

Profile

Open Access

Bento Box Discovery Model

Search:

Digital Collections

Web Site Content

Institutional

Repositories

E-JournalsSearch Results

Central index & search functionality

Consolidated Index

ILS Data

Aggregated Content packages

Open AccessVuFind /

Blacklight

API

Web-scale search problem

Search:

Search Results

Pre-built harvesting and

indexing

Consolidated

Index

???

Non Participating

Content Sources

Problem in how to deal with resources not provided to ingest into consolidated index

Digital Collections

Web Site ContentInstitution

al Repositori

es

…E-Journals

ILS Data

Aggregated Content packages

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

146

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

148

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 Publishers1. Expose content appropriately2. Trust that access to material will be

controlled consistent with subscription terms

3. “Fair” Linking4. Materials not disadvantaged or

underrepresented in library discovery implementations

5. Usage reporting

Facilitate a healthy ecosystem among

discovery service providers, libraries and content

providers

ODI context

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

154

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)

155

ODI Timeline

Milestone Target Date Status

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 156

Balance of Constituents

Libraries

Publishers

Service Providers

157

Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt UniversityJamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard UniversityKen Varnum, University of Michigan

Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon

Lucy Harrison, College Center for Library Automation (D2D liaison/observer)Michele Newberry

Lettie Conrad, SAGE PublicationsRoger Schonfeld, ITHAKA/JSTOR/PorticoJeff Lang, Thomson Reuters

Linda Beebe, American Psychological AssocAaron Wood, Alexander Street Press

Jenny Walker, Ex Libris GroupJohn Law, Serials SolutionsMichael Gorrell, EBSCO Information ServicesDavid Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)

Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)

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

159

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 Adoption160

ODI Stakeholder Survey

• Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4, 2012

• Each subgroup developed questions pertinent to it area of concern

161

Survey Responses

• 782 Librarians• 74 Publishers• 15 Discovery Services• 871 Total

162

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

163

Librarian’s preferred Use statistics• Total Number of Searches• List of search query terms• Referring URLs

164

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%

165

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 ecosystem166

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

167

ODI Final Report

• Issued for public Comment• Comment period closed November

18, 2013

168

Report Topics

• Introduction– In scope / out of scope– Terms and definitions

• Evolution of Discovery– Related initiatives

• Recommendations

169

General Recommendations• Create oversight group• Actions for content providers and

discovery service creators to assert conformance

170

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

171

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– Result clicks– Click-throughs– Link source identification

172

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– APIs exposed– Fair linking

173

Technical recommendations• Transfer of data from content

providers to discovery service creators– Make use of existing standards and

protocols when possible

174

Current work Next Steps

• Review comments received– Chairs + Workgroup members– Make any needed revisions– Submit for final approval by NISO D2D

175

Connect with ODI

• ODI Project website:http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/

• Interest group mailing list:http://www.niso.org/lists/opendiscovery/

• Email ODI:odi@niso.org

176

NISO Virtual ConferenceWeb-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming Access to Library Resources

NISO Virtual Conference • November 20, 2013

Questions?All questions will be posted with presenter answers on the NISO website following the webinar:

http://www.niso.org/news/events/2013/virtual/discovery

Thank you for joining us today. Please take a moment to fill out the brief online survey.

We look forward to hearing from you!

THANK YOU