Improving Institutional Repository Search Engine Visibility in Google and Google Scholar

  • 2,100 views
Uploaded on

At the DLF Forum in 2010 we gave a general presentation about search engine optimization for digital repositories. In that presentation we revealed some new and surprising information about Google …

At the DLF Forum in 2010 we gave a general presentation about search engine optimization for digital repositories. In that presentation we revealed some new and surprising information about Google Scholar harvesting requirements, and how they affect institutional repositories’ visibility in the GS index. We learned, for instance, that the Webmaster Inclusion Guidelines for Google Scholar cautions us to “use Dublin Core only as a last resort” for metadata tags. One reason for instruction this is that Dublin Core cannot represent publication citation information very well. We have also learned that getting indexed in Google Scholar results in higher ranking for that same item in Google’s main index. Working with OCLC, we have continued to research SEO practices for Google Scholar as well as for the main Google index, and that research has resulted in a book contract with Neal-Schumann. We also gave a similar presentation at CNI last spring: http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/ir-main,60502. In this year’s research update we offer a solid set of practices that can be applied broadly to institutional repositories to improve the percentage of items that are indexed by Google Scholar.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,100
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5

Actions

Shares
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
4

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Invisible  Ins*tu*onal  Repositories:  Addressing  the  Low  Indexing  Ra*o  of  IRs  in  Google  Scholar  by  Transforming  Metadata  Schema  rlitsch  &  Patrick  OBrien  Kenning  AOctober  31,  2011  2011  Fall  DLF,  Baltimore,  MD  
  • 2. Today’s  Objec*ves  u  Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program   v  Program  Priorities  &  Results     v  Issues  &  Opportunity   v  Google  Scholar  
  • 3. MarrioE  Library  SEO  program  priori*es  u  Digital  repositories  vs.  general  websites   v  Millions  of  objects  in  databases   v  Include  IR  u  Priority  1  –  Increase  Reach   v  Get  objects  indexed  in  search  engines  u  Priority  2  –  Increase  Visibility   v  Provide  robust  descriptive  content  
  • 4. Collec*on  Google  Index  Ra*os  have   increased  across  the  board…   Google Index Ratio - All Collections* 12%  Average   51%   74%   37%   High**   87%   100%   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%   07/05/10   04/04/11   10/16/11   * Google Index Ratio = URLs submitted / URLs Indexed by Google for about 150 collections containing ~170,00 URLs **Highest index ratio achieved for Collections with over 500 URLs submitted to Google
  • 5. …increasing  Google  referrals  by  200%  and  total  visitors  by  79%.   12 week year-over-year
  • 6. However,  Google  Scholar  Index  Ra*os  ??   Google Scholar Index Ratio 0%You can find Marriott IR papers in Google now, but can not find them in Google Scholar. Why?
  • 7. Today’s  Objec*ves  u  Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program   v  Program  Priorities  &  Results     v  Issues  &  Opportunity   v  Google  Scholar  
  • 8. College  Students  Begin  Research  -­‐  2005  
  • 9. College  Students  Begin  Research  -­‐  2010   DeRosa,  Cathy,  et  al.  “Perceptions  of  Libraries,  2010:  Context  and  Community:  A  Report   to  the  OCLC  Membership”,  OCLC,  2010.  
  • 10. Start  with  the  800  pound  gorilla  –  Google.  
  • 11. MarrioE  Library  Management  Experiences  u  Large  digital  collections  built  over  a  decade   v  1.3+  million  items  u  Why  weren’t  we  getting  indexed?   v  Harvesting/indexing  rates  as  low  as  8%   v  Non-­‐existent  IR  showing  in  Google  Scholar  u  Sitemaps  generated  for  Google    
  • 12. MWDL  Repositories  Survey   %  w/  Indirect  URL  Utah  Digital  Newspapers  Repository   University  of  Nevada,  Reno   University  of  Utah     Southern  Utah  University     Brigham  Young  University     Utah  State  University     Utah  State  Archives     Utah  State  University     Utah  Valley  University   Weber  State  University     Health  Education  Assets  Library     University  of  Nevada,  Las  Vegas     Utah  State  Library   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%   October 2010
  • 13. MWDL  Repositories  Survey   %  w/  Direct  URL   University  of  Nevada,  Reno     Utah  State  University     University  of  Utah     Utah  State  University     University  of  Nevada,  Las  Vegas     Utah  Valley  University     Brigham  Young  University     Weber  State  University     Health  Education  Assets  Library     Southern  Utah  University     Utah  State  Library   Utah  State  Archives    Utah  Digital  Newspapers  Repository   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%   October 2010
  • 14. Literature  Lessons  u  Most  are  dated  u  Most  deal  with  general  websites  u  Few  deal  with  digital  collections  in  db’s  u  Some  suggest  duplicating  the  content  outside   the  database  
  • 15. Today’s  Objec*ves  u  Discuss  Marriott  Library  SEO  program   v  Program  Priorities  &  Results     v  Issues  &  Opportunity   v  Google  Scholar  
  • 16. Why  does  Google  Scholar  MaEer  ??  u  “researchers  find  Google  and  Google  Scholar  to  be   amazingly  effective”  and  accept  the  results  as  “good   enough  in  many  cases”  (Kroll  &  Forsman  2010)    u  “broader  awareness  of  specialized  Google  tools  such   as  Google  Scholar  and  Google  Book  among  faculty   members  and  graduate  students”  (Rieger  2009)    u  “the  amount  of  qualified  scholarly  content  has   increased  considerably  in  Google  Scholar  since  it   was  launched  in  2004  (Mikki  2009)  u  4%  -­‐  27%  use  increase  in  four-­‐year  U  Miss  study   (Herrera  2010)  
  • 17. USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  baseline   Google Index Ratio 12%   07/05/10   ETD  1   11/19/10   10/16/11   0%   ETD  2   23%   UScholar  Works   4%   Board  of  Regents   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  *Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 18.33% (1,188/6,482)
  • 18. USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  baseline   Google Index Ratio 07/05/10   Google Scholar Index Ratio ETD  1   12%   11/19/10   0% 10/16/11   0%   ETD  2   23%   UScholar  Works   4%   Board  of  Regents   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  *Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 18.33% (1,188/6,482)
  • 19. Low  GS  indexing  ra*os  cut  across   ins*tu*ons   Google  Scholar  Indexing  Ratio  for  Selected  Institutional   and  Disciplinary  Repositories  October  2011   Baylor  U  -­‐  BearDocs   89%   Digital  Commons@UNLincoln   60%  Virginia  Tech  -­‐  CS  Tech  Reports   60%   Aquatic  Commons   56%   Cornell  -­‐  arXiv   47%  Cornell  -­‐  Digital  Commons@ILR   40%   IUPUI  Scholar   38%   BYU  Scholars  Archive   34%   Michigan  -­‐  Deep  Blue   34%  Univ  of  Oregon  -­‐  Scholars  Bank   29%   Harvard  Univ  -­‐  DASH   28%   eCommons@Cornell   18%   UW  Madison  -­‐  Minds@UW   17%   Texas  A&M  Repository   16%   IU  Scholarworks   13%   Columbia  Univ  -­‐  Academic   13%   D-­‐Scholarship@Pitt   12%   CaltechAuthors   10%   Univ  of  Rochester  Research   6%   UW  -­‐  ResearchWorks  Archive   3%   0%   10%   20%   30%   40%   50%   60%   70%   80%   90%   100%  
  • 20. Survey  Methodology  Key  Points  u  Selected  from  OpenDOAR   v  Only  IRs  from  the  U.S.   n  “Pure”  institutional  or  disciplinary  repositories   v  Different  software  types   n  DSpace,  Digital  Commons,  EPrints,  IR+,  CONTENTdm,   DigiTool,  arXiv  u  Calculated  total  items  in  each  repository  u  Site  operator  search   v  Site:repositoryURL   v  Shows  Approximation  
  • 21. GS  “site”  operator  provides  a  close  approxima*on  for  indexing  ra*o  
  • 22. Repository  so_ware  does  not  appear  to  be  the   deciding  factor  Repository  Name   Repository  So_ware   Repository  URL   Repository  items   Items  in  Google  Scholar   Indexing  Ra*o  Boston  College  -­‐  eScholarship@BC   DigiTool   dcollec7ons.bc.edu   1,635   1   0%  UW  -­‐  ResearchWorks  Archive   Dspace   digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace   11,285   304   3%  Univ  of  Rochester  Research   IR+   urresearch.rochester.edu   16,184   983   6%  CaltechAuthors   Eprints   authors.library.caltech.edu   22,000   2,290   10%  D-­‐Scholarship@PiT   Eprints   d-­‐scholarship.piT.edu   5,888   686   12%  Columbia  Univ  -­‐  Academic  Commons   Digital  Commons   academiccommons.columbia.edu   4,631   586   13%  IU  Scholarworks   Dspace   scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace   7,782   1,030   13%  Texas  A&M  Repository   Dspace   repository.tamu.edu   46,324   7,250   16%  UW  Madison  -­‐  Minds@UW   Dspace   minds.wisconsin.edu   15,078   2,520   17%  eCommons@Cornell   Dspace   ecommons.library.cornell.edu   18,544   3,410   18%  Harvard  Univ  -­‐  DASH   Dspace   dash.harvard.edu   6,193   1,710   28%  Univ  of  Oregon  -­‐  Scholars  Bank   Dspace   scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui   9,740   2,840   29%  Michigan  -­‐  Deep  Blue   Dspace   deepblue.lib.umich.edu   66,038   22,200   34%  BYU  Scholars  Archive   CONTENTdm   scholarsarchive.lib.byu.edu   7,421   2,520   34%  IUPUI  Scholar   Dspace   scholarworks.iupui.edu   2,109   800   38%  Cornell  -­‐  Digital  Commons@ILR   Digital  Commons   digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu   14,669   5,880   40%  Cornell  -­‐  arXiv   Other  (arXiv)   arxiv.org   706,906   330,000   47%  Aqua7c  Commons   Eprints   aqua7ccommons.org   5,722   3,230   56%  Virginia  Tech  -­‐  CS  Tech  Reports   Eprints   eprints.cs.vt.edu   983   586   60%  Digital  Commons@UNLincoln   Digital  Commons   digitalcommons.unl.edu   50,657   30,200   60%  Baylor  U  -­‐  BearDocs   Dspace   beardocs.baylor.edu   928   829   89%  
  • 23. Google  Scholar  wants  the  right  metadata  tags  used  consistently  and  accurately.  "Use  Dublin  Core  tags  (e.g.,  DC.title)  as  a  last  resort  -­‐they  work  poorly  for   journal  papers...”   -­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  …  theres  a  good  chance  that  many  of  your  papers  arent  included  at  all,   because  documents  with  the  same  title  are  often  considered   duplicates.   -­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  “…  incorrect  identification  of  references  could  lead  to  exclusion  of  your   papers  from  Google  Scholar  or  to  low  ranking  of  your  papers  in  the   search  results.”   -­‐  Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters  “…the  most  common  cause  of  indexing  problems  is  incorrect  extraction  of   bibliographic  data  by  the  automated  parser  software.     -­‐    Google  Scholar  Inclusion  Guidelines  for  Webmasters
  • 24. Challenge  is  presen*ng  bibliographic   cita*ons  GS  can  iden*fy,  parse  and  digest  10/31/11 Thanks for nothing: changes in income and labor force participation for never-married mothers since 1982 Title Thanks for nothing: changes in income and labor force participation for never-married mothers since 1982 University of Utah creator Wolfinger, Nicholas H. Other Creator McKeever, Matthew Subject.Keyword Motherhood; Single Mothers; Income; Population surveys; Subject.LCSH Single mothers Income Description This study examines whether the changing social and economic characteristics of women who give birth out of wedlock have led to higher family incomes. Using Current Population Survey data collected between 1982 and 2002, we find that never-married mothers remain poor. They have made modest economic gains, but these have disproportionately occurred at the top of the income distribution. Yet there is no evidence of a burgeoning class of "Murphy Browns" middle-class professional women who give birth out of wedlock. Surprisingly, never-married mothers incomes have stagnated in spite of impressive gains in education and other personal and vocational characteristics that should have resulted in greater economic progress than has been the case. These gains cast doubt on various stereotypes about women who give birth out of wedlock. Publisher University of Utah Date.Original 2006-07-26 Type Text Format.Extent 370,155 Bytes Format.Medium application/pdf Resource Identifier ir-main,824 Language eng Series Institute of Public and International Affairs Working Papers Relation McKeever, M. & Wolfinger, N.H. (2006). Thanks for Nothing: Changes in Income and Labor Force Participation Never-Married Mothers since 1982. Institute of Public & International Affairs (IPIA), 4, 1-43. Rights Management (c) Matthew McKeever and Nicholas H. Wolfinger Research Institute Institute of Public and International Affairs (IPIA) Department Family & Consumer Studies Sociology School / College College of Social & Behavioral Science Contributing Institution University of Utah Publication Type working paper UNIVERSITY OF UTAH | ECCLES HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY | MARRIOTT LIBRARY | QUINNEY LAW LIBRARY | DISCLAIMER | COPYRIGHT | CONTACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, THE INFORMATION IN THIS SITE IS AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATE FORMATS UPON REQUEST.
  • 25. First  step  was  to  begin  aligning  Highwire  Press  with  exis*ng  Dublin  Core  fields  
  • 26. Google  Scholar  HTML  speak  
  • 27. Google  Scholar  Pilot  1  tested  importance  of  Metadata  model  u  6,482  URLs    in  Sitemaps  submitted  via  Google   Webmaster  Tools.  u  Errors  generated  during  Google  crawls  were   analyzed  and  addressed.      u  Updated  &  corrected  metadata  for  20  pilot  articles   v  Ensured  full-­‐text  PDF  met  GS  inclusion  guideline   requirements.   v  Provided  a  “landing  page”  per  GS  inclusion  guidelines,   containing  links  to  the  20  IR  pilot  papers  that  was   within  a  few  clicks  of  the  home  page.    
  • 28. USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  increased   Google Index Ratio 12%   07/05/10   ETD  1   69%   11/19/10   97%   10/16/11   0%   ETD  2   68%   98%   23%   UScholar  Works   51%   98%   4%   Board  of  Regents   47%   97%   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  *October 16, 2011 Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 97.82% (10,306/10,536).
  • 29. USpace  IR  Google  Index  Ra*os  increased   Google Index Ratio 07/05/10   Google Scholar Index Ratio ETD  1   12%   69%   11/19/10   97%   0% 10/16/11   0%   ETD  2   68%   98%   23%   UScholar  Works   51%   98%   4%   Board  of  Regents   47%   97%   0%   25%   50%   75%   100%  *October 16, 2011 Weighted Average Google Index Ratio = 97.82% (10,306/10,536).
  • 30. GS  Pilot  2  U*lized  OCLC’s  rela*onship  with  Google  Scholar  u  19  Papers  in  GS  Pilot  2   Google Scholar Index Ratio v  6  of  7  GS  paper  types  represented   v  19  Full  Text  PDFs   62%u  Augmented  CONTENTdm  v.6   v  Highwire  Press  Meta  tags   v  Browse  By  Year   v  Recently  Added   v  College  &  Department  
  • 31. A  Pre-­‐Print  Author  Manuscript  is  not  the   Journal  Ar*cle.   Meta  Tag    Pre-­‐Print   Journal  Article  1  -­‐  citation_author   Maloney,  Krisellen;  Antelman,  Kristin;   Maloney,  Krisellen;  Antelman,  Kristin;  Arlitsch,   Arlitsch,  Kenning;  Butler,  John   Kenning;  Butler,  John  2  -­‐  citation_date   2009   2010  3  -­‐  citation_title   Future  leaders  views  on  organizational   Future  leaders  views  on  organizational  culture   culture  4  -­‐  citation_publisher   N/A   Association  of  College  &  Research  Libraries  5  -­‐  citation_journal_title   N/A   College  and  Research  Libraries  6  -­‐  citation_volume   71  7  -­‐  citation_issue   4  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1   322  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   56   347  10  -­‐  citation_doi    11  -­‐  citation_issn  12  -­‐  citation_isbn  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Organizational  culture   Organizational  culture  16  -­‐  citation_technical_report_institution   Uspace  Ins7tu7onal  Repository,     N/A   University  of  Utah    17  -­‐  citation_technical_report_number   N/A  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/ hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/ collec7on/uspace/id/10/filename/3.pdf   uspace/id/16/filename/17.pdf  22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/ hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/ Not Relevant collec7on/uspace/id/10/rec/1   collec7on/uspace/id/16/rec/2   14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 19 - citation_conference_title 20 - citation_inbook_title
  • 32. A  minor  nuance  is  the  difference  between   Books  and  Book  Chapters   Meta  Tag    Book  Chapter   Book  1  -­‐  citation_author   Riloff,  Ellen  M.   Ram,  Ashwin  2  -­‐  citation_date   1999   1999  3  -­‐  citation_title   Information  extraction  as  a  stepping  stone  toward   Understanding  Language:  Understanding   story  understanding   Computational  Models  of  Reading  4  -­‐  citation_publisher   MIT  Press   MIT  Press  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   435   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   460   519  12  -­‐  citation_isbn   0-­‐262-­‐18192-­‐4   0-­‐262-­‐18192-­‐4  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Information  extraction;  Story  understanding;   Information  extraction;  Story  understanding;  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  20  -­‐  citation_inbook_title   Understanding  Language:  Understanding   N/A   Computational  Models  of  Reading  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/ uspace/id/9/filename/5.pdf  22  -­‐   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/citation_abstract_html_url   uspace/id/9/rec/1   Not Relevant 5 - citation_journal_title 6 - citation_volume 7 - citation_issue 10 - citation_doi 11 - citation_issn 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 19 - citation_conference_title
  • 33. ETDs  use  very  different  metadata  tags   Meta  Tag    PhD   Masters  1  -­‐  citation_author   Rague,  Brian  William   Wu,  Shangduan  2  -­‐  citation_date   2010/08   2010/07  3  -­‐  citation_title   A  CS1  pedagogical  approach  to  parallel  thinking   Electronic  structure  and  transport  property  of   disordered  graphene  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   234   84  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Computer;  CS1;  Educa7on;  Parallel;  Programming;     Disorder;  Electronic  structure;  Graphene;  Transport   property;  Electronic  structure;    14  -­‐  citation_dissertation_institution   University  of  Utah,  College  of  Engineering   University  of  Utah,  College  of  Science  15  -­‐  citation_dissertation_name   PhD   MS  18  -­‐  citation_language   en   en  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/ hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/ uspace/id/5/filename/19.pdf   uspace/id/0/filename/4.pdf  22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/ hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/ collec7on/uspace/id/5/rec/1   uspace/id/0/rec/1   Not Relevant 4 - citation_publisher 5 - citation_journal_title 6 - citation_volume 7 - citation_issue 10 - citation_doi 11 - citation_issn 12 - citation_isbn 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 19 - citation_conference_title 20 - citation_inbook_title
  • 34. Working  papers  have  a  unique   combina*on  of  metadata  tags.   Meta  Tag   Working  Paper  1  -­‐  citation_author   Wolfinger,  Nicholas  H.;  McKeever,  Matthew  2  -­‐  citation_date   2006-­‐07-­‐26  3  -­‐  citation_title   Thanks  for  nothing:  changes  in  income  and  labor  force  participation  for  never-­‐married   mothers  since  1982  6  -­‐  citation_volume  7  -­‐  citation_issue  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   1  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   43  10  -­‐  citation_doi    13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Motherhood;  Single  Mothers;  Income;  Population  surveys;  16  -­‐  citation_technical_report_institution   Institute  of  Public  &  International  Affairs  (IPIA),  University  of  Utah  17  -­‐  citation_technical_report_number   2006-­‐07-­‐04  18  -­‐  citation_language   en  19  -­‐  citation_conference_title   101st  American  Sociological  Associa7on  (ASA)  Annual  Mee7ng;  2006  Aug  11-­‐14;  Montreal,   Canada  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/7/filename/21.pdf  22  -­‐  citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collec7on/uspace/id/7/rec/1   Not Relevant 4 - citation_publisher 5 - citation_journal_title 11 - citation_issn 12 - citation_isbn 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 20 - citation_inbook_title
  • 35. Conferece  Ar*cles  may  or  may  not  have   published  proceedings   Meta  Tag    Conference  Article  1  -­‐  citation_author   Balasubramonian,  Rajeev;  Awasthi,  Manu;  Sudan,  Kshitij;  Carter,  John  2  -­‐  citation_date   2009/02/14  3  -­‐  citation_title   Dynamic  hardware-­‐assisted  software-­‐controlled  page  placement  to  manage  capacity  allocation  and   sharing  within  large  caches  4  -­‐  citation_publisher   Institute  of  Electrical  and  Electronics  Engineers  (IEEE)  5  -­‐  citation_journal_title   High  Performance  Computer  Architecture,  2009.  HPCA  2009.  IEEE  15th  International  Symposium  on  6  -­‐  citation_volume  7  -­‐  citation_issue  8  -­‐  citation_firstpage   250  9  -­‐  citation_lastpage   261  10  -­‐  citation_doi     10.1109/HPCA.2009.4798260  11  -­‐  citation_issn   1530-­‐0897  12  -­‐  citation_isbn   978-­‐1-­‐4244-­‐2932-­‐5  13  -­‐  citation_keywords   Page  coloring;  Shadow-­‐memory  addresses;  Cache  capacity  allocation;  Data/page  migration  18  -­‐  citation_language   en  19  -­‐  citation_conference_title   15th  Interna7onal  Symposium  on  High  Performance  Computer  Architecture  (HPCA-­‐15  2009)  [14-­‐18  Feb.   2009,  Raleigh,  NC,  USA]  21  -­‐  citation_pdf_url     hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/u7ls/geeile/collec7on/uspace/id/1/filename/11.pdf   citation_abstract_html_url   hTp://cdm6gs.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collec7on/uspace/id/1  22  -­‐  Not Relevant 14 - citation_dissertation_institution 15 - citation_dissertation_name 16 - citation_technical_report_institution 17 - citation_technical_report_number 20 - citation_inbook_title
  • 36. Ques*ons?  Kenning  Arlitsch  kenning.arlitsch@utah.edu    Patrick  OBrien  www.RevXcorp.com  Patrick.OBrien@utah.edu  805.509.2586  
  • 37. Ques*ons?  Kenning  Arlitsch  kenning.arlitsch@utah.edu    Patrick  OBrien  www.RevXcorp.com  Patrick.OBrien@utah.edu