NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
 

NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases

on

  • 807 views

About the Webinar ...

About the Webinar

Link resolvers have become an important element of providing access to full-text electronic content and are now ubiquitous in both the library and publishing community. These systems work well enough a majority of the time. However, they are not entirely problem free, and as a result users may not always obtain access to information which their institutions have licensed for them. The management of the large volumes of linking data necessary to support these services is a problem in scale as well as in detail. Several NISO projects have sought to improve the reliability of these systems, including the Knowledgebases and Related Tools (KBART) and Improving OpenURL through Analytics (IOTA) initiatives.

This webinar will highlight these NISO projects and other community initiatives launched to create community-managed knowledge base repositories.

Agenda

Introduction
Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO

Building the Global Open Knowledgebase
Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries

KBART: A Recommended Practice to Increase Accessibility and Discovery
Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries

What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative
Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University

Statistics

Views

Total Views
807
Views on SlideShare
612
Embed Views
195

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

4 Embeds 195

http://www.niso.org 159
http://www.scoop.it 34
https://tweetdeck.twitter.com 1
https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases Presentation Transcript

  • NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases May 14, 2014 Speakers: Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/
  • Kristen Wilson May 14, 2014 BUILDING THE GLOBAL OPEN KNOWLEDGEBASE
  • OVERVIEW What is GOKb? The problem space How can GOKb help? Next steps
  •  An enhanced knowledgebase  A community-managed knowledgebase  An open data knowledgebase WHAT IS GOKB?
  • GOKB PARTNERS
  • GOKB TIME LINE 2012 2013 2014 20152011 2016 GOKb and KB+ collaborate on data model GOKb Phase I: Proof of Concept Release Funded by Mellon Foundation & Kuali OLE Partnership GOKb Public Release Community development New partners Enhanced functionaityGOKb Phase II: Partner Release
  • THE PROBLEM SPACE •Kbs were primarily used for access •They became a part of the add-on ERMS •Movement toward integrated systems •A positive and necessary experience. The Kb experiment
  • THE PROBLEM SPACE •Kbs are needed for management too •Identifiers are crucial •We need to manage all e- resources •Systems should be integrated and Kb- centric Lessons learned
  • Managing the right “thing” Going beyond bibliographic description Creating identifiers for what we need to manage WHY KB-CENTRIC? Title: Tetrahedron Letters Format: Electronic Publisher: Elsevier Package: Freedom Collection Platform: ScienceDirect
  •  Enhanced data means we can manage what’s important  Open data means that the knowledgebase is not wedded to any one system  Community-managed data means we contribute directly to the quality of the knowledgebase HOW CAN GOKB HELP?
  • ENHANCED DATA: THE TIPP Global (GOKb) Local
  • Title changes ISSN change as principal indicator Earlier Related Title and Later Related Title Titles within a package on a platform (TIPPs) Organization role changes, especially Publisher transfers ENHANCED DATA: CHANGES OVER TIME
  • GOKb TIPP E- ISSN P- ISSN DOIVendor ID Catalog ID ENHANCED DATA: IDENTIFIERS
  •  GOKb is just data – it’s not tied to any one system  GOKb will support Kuali OLE and KB+ -- but it can support any other project too  External systems will access data via API  GOKb will include a co-referencing service to crosswalk between different sets of identifiers OPEN DATA
  • COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA: DOING MORE TOGETHER • Publisher Data • Package information • Standard licencesGlobal (GOKb) • National/Consortial information • National licences • Central ServicesNational (KB+) • Local holdings • Financial information • Documentation Institutional (OLE)
  •  Initial ingest: OpenRefine  Apply rules  Validate data  Working with data: GOKb web application  Browse and search data  Make corrections  Submit error reports COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA: TOOLS FOR CONTRIBUTORS
  • GOKB DEMO: OPEN REFINE
  • GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION
  • GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION
  •  Data collection  Ebooks  Linked data Building community NEXT STEPS
  •  It’s a community, not a start up  Ensure consistency of data across supply chain  Open data and software  Extensible community model for data management  Structured participation will be possible for:  National Kbs  Vendors  Individual libraries WHY SHOULD YOU GET INVOLVED?
  • Kristen Wilson GOKb Editor Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery North Carolina State University Libraries kristen_wilson@ncsu.edu gokb.org QUESTIONS?
  • KBART Phase II: Ensuring Access with Accurate Metadata Chad Hutchens Head of Digital Collections University of Wyoming Libraries
  • KBART Working Group Knowledge Bases And Related Tools
  • Metadata Supply Chain Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link resolver
  • Metadata Supply Chain The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases
  • The Problem If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver and all systems reliant upon it (discovery services, OPAC, ILL, etc.)
  • KBART Background Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries What – Universal holdings metadata format to improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain Where – NISO KBART Workroom http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart When – Phase I – Released Jan 2010 Endorsement of Phase I – Began June 2010 Phase II - Released April 7, 2014 *Supercedes KBART Phase I* Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings data
  • Who is behind KBART II  Standards organizations  UKSG and NISO  Working group members (stakeholders):  Knowledgebase vendors ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO  Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators) ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing, Springer  Subscription Agents  Libraries & Consortia  Full list –http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/phase2roster/
  • KBART Registry  Clearinghouse for KBART metadata  Endorsed publishers, vendors, etc.  Contact information  URL's to KBART metadata  https://sites.google.com/site/kbartregistry/
  • Original Phase I Fields (16)
  • Updating the Rec’s  Spreading the word and outreach  Working with content providers, vendors, etc.  Soliciting broad feedback (all feedback included in Phase II Recommendations)  Focus on 3 new areas
  • 3 Areas of Emphasis  Freely available content  Ebooks & Conference Proceedings  Consortial Holdings  9 new fields (for a total of 25) & applicable new guidelines
  • Free Content: New Field  1 new field, 1 modification to existing field  New “access_type” field  Type can be “F,” for free content, or “P” for paid content (is aligned with OAMI rec’s thus far)  Free text describing details may be entered into existing “coverage_notes” field.
  • Free Content Issues  KBART is not endorsing any particular Open Access model • For “F” to be used, 100% of title’s content must be freely available  Difficulty with hybrid titles (author pays OA, embargoes, rolling access walls, etc.)  Needs to be addressed at the article-level
  • Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 1  8 new fields total  1 new field applies to differentiate formats  New “publication_type” field  Type can be “monograph,” “journal,” or “conference proceeding”
  • Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 2 Field Description publication_type Serial (i.e., journals and conference proceeding series) or monograph (i.e., book, eBook, conference proceeding volume) date_monograph_published_print Date of monograph first published in print date_monograph_published_online Date of monograph first published online monograph_volume Number of volume for monograph (applicable to eBooks and conference proceedings; for proceedings, volume within the conference proceedings series) monograph_edition Edition for book first_editor First editor (for monographs, i.e., ebooks or conference proceedings volumes) parent_publication_title_id Title ID of parent publication (for a conference proceeding volume, its parent_publication_title_id is the title_id of the conference proceedings series) preceding_publication_title_id Title ID of preceding publication title, for journal serials and conference proceeding serials.
  • Ebook & Conference Proceedings: Issues  Some existing fields already apply to monographs and serials (e.g. identifier fields for ISSN/ISBN)  Some new fields are used for certain formats (e.g. “monograph_edition”)  “preceeding_publication_title_ID” can be problematic
  • Consortial Holdings  Librarians & consortium managers really wanted this (and more)!  Lack of readily available consortium lists  No new fields for this area specifically, rather, new guidelines
  • Consortial Holdings: Guidelines  Will require separate lists under 2 circumstances: 1) Package consists of unique titles -or- 2) Package consists of unique coverage dates
  • Consortial Holdings: File naming conventions “[ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[PackageName] _[YYYY-MM-DD].txt”  Global lists (i.e. universal list) Ex:JSTOR_Global_AllTitles_2013-01-14.txt  Consortium specific lists Ex: Oxford_SCELC_AllTitles_2013-01-09.txt  Region specific lists Ex: Springer_Asia-Pacific_Medicine_2013-01-28.txt
  • How we got to Phase II  Draft of KBART Phase II released Oct, 2013 for public comment period  Received 45+ comments  Group met and discussed each individually  Nettie, Chad, Magaly spend holidays drafting responses and making changes to rec’s ;)  D2D Committee approves Phase II, April 7, 2014!  NISO KBART RP-9-2014 is at: http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/rp-9-2014/
  • What's next?  6 month transition to Phase II, target of September, 2014!  Standing committee  Focus on endorsement, maintenance  Work with new content providers
  • Useful Resources to Google  NISO KBART Workroom  KBART Phase I Final Report  KBART Phase II Final Report (RP-9-2014)  KBART Registry  Link Resolvers and the Information Supply Chain
  • What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases May 14, 2014 Adam Chandler, Cornell University
  • What was IOTA? 2010-2013 NISO Working Group that measured the relative importance of the elements that make up OpenURL links to help vendors improve their OpenURL strings so that the maximum number of OpenURL requests resolve to a correct record.
  • Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking • Certain A&I database providers (e.g., CSA, PubMed) offered full-text linking options for a select number of content providers. • Libraries manually activated full-text linking with providers they had subscriptions with.
  • Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons
  • Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons • Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for each full-text provider. • A&I providers offering this option were few. • Selection of full-text providers was limited. Cons:
  • Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons • Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for each full-text provider. • A&I providers offering this option were few. • Selection of full-text providers was limited. • Once set up, the static links to full texts were accurate. • Debugging is easy: A&I --> Full Text Pros: Cons:
  • Advent of OpenURL Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos. • Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request. Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings. • Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking. • Indicates provider of "appropriate copy" Solution: A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")
  • A, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objects for the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44 (November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2010). OpenURL: syntax, resolver, linking nodes http://www.anytarget.com/?issn=0957-4484&volume=21&issue=44&date=20101105 &spage=445201&title=Nanotechnology&atitle=A+versatile+nanotechnology+to+ connect+individual+nano-objects+for+the+ fabrication+of+hybrid+single- electron+devices.&aulast=A++Bernand Source Citation Target Link (example using OpenURL syntax, similar to Source OpenURL)
  • Example of Resolver Menu Page Matthew Reidsma, “jQuery for Customizing Hosted Library Services", http://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/11 (accessed July 18, 2012)
  • Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking
  • Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking Pros: • KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers. • Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking.
  • Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking Pros: • KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers. • Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking. Cons: • Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: debugging is very hard and does not scale. • No systematic method exists to benchmark linking, and thus, dynamic reference linking has not improved significantly since version 0.1 of the standard.
  • Identifying source of problem… "72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by databases (for example, A&I products)." Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.
  • Identifying source of problem… "72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by databases (for example, A&I products)." Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf. Defining methodology for approaching problem Researchers have indicated the need for metadata quality metrics, including: completeness; accuracy; conformance to expectations; logical consistency and coherence. Bruce, Thomas R. and Hillmann, Diane I. 2004. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice. Ed. Diane I. Hillmann and Elaine L. Westbrooks. Chicago: American Library Association, pp. 238-256.
  • IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups IOTA • Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking; • Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by: –OpenURL providers.
  • IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups IOTA • Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking; • Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by: –OpenURL providers. KBART • “Knowledge Bases And Related Tools” • Deals with data issues at the KB level • Seeks improvements in data exchange practices between: –content providers (e.g. OpenURL providers); –product vendors (e.g. link resolver vendors). –subscription agents;
  • IOTA’s Basic Assumptions • Results achieved through an analytical investigation of how OpenURL links work. • Practical: Not the OpenURL standard that was addressed, but links (OpenURLs) generated by standard. • Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant improvement in linking success rate. "small changes. big improvements"
  • (A) Usefulness of comparing OpenURLs • Content providers that generate OpenURLs can: –compare their OpenURLs with other providers; –make improvements to their OpenURLs. • Institutions can: –compare OpenURL providers; –make local adjustments to OpenURL setup. • Resolver vendors can: –compare OpenURL providers; –Change their settings for OpenURL providers: –Link resolvers; –Web-scale discovery products.
  • http://openurlquality.org/
  • Report types • Source reports –Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database –A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency) –B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency) • Element / Pattern reports –Viewing how a particular (1) element or format –A. is used across vendors –B. is used across databases
  • Report types • Source reports –Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database –A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency) –B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency) • Element / Pattern reports –Viewing how a particular (1) element or format –A. is used across vendors –B. is used across databases • Vendor Quality Report? –Viewing vendors’ OpenURL quality score
  • (B) OpenURL Quality Index: Rating vendors by their OpenURLs 1. Core Elements: •Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting system; •27M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content providers. 2. Scoring System: •Assumption: Correlation exists between •# of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & ability of OpenURLs to link to specific content. 3. Element Weighting: •Assigned based on their relative importance: •spage vs atitle •issn vs jtitle •doi/pmid vs date, etc.
  • Further investigation was needed
  • Further investigation was needed • Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:
  • Further investigation was needed • Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way: • Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage, etc.) • Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs spage, etc.)
  • Further investigation was needed • Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way: • Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage, etc.) • Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs spage, etc.) • IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only. How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?
  • Further investigation was needed • Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way: • Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage, etc.) • Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs spage, etc.) • IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only. How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors? • knowledge base, • resolver, • full-text provider (target).
  • http://www.niso.org/publications/tr/
  • It is impossible to give each OpenURL element a universal weight. Therefore, an industry wide OpenURL quality index is impossible.
  • http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/
  • Adam Chandler alc28@cornell.edu https://twitter.com/alc28
  • NISO Webinar • May 14, 2014 Questions? All questions will be posted with presenter answers on the NISO website following the webinar: http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/ NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
  • 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