Evaluating the Quality of OpenURLs Through Analytics (TLA 2012)


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluating the Quality of OpenURLs Through Analytics (TLA 2012)

  1. 1. Evaluating the Quality ofOpenURLs Through Analytics Texas Library Association Annual Conference Houston, TX April 19, 2012 Rafal Kasprowski, Rice University
  2. 2. What is IOTA?• Initiative that measures 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.Elements:• journal title book title ISBN• ISSN start page DOI• volume author PMID• issue date …
  3. 3. Agenda• In the Beginning: Proprietary linking and advent of OpenURL• From Cornell to NISO: IOTA created in response to OpenURL linking problems• IOTA’s analytical approach• Community-derived reports comparing OpenURLs• Element weighting• Concept of the OpenURL Quality Index• Environment-specific applications of Quality Index• Avenues for further research
  4. 4. 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.• A&I --> Full Text
  5. 5. 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.But...• Once set up, the static links to full texts were accurate.• Problem source pinpointed easily: A&I --> Full Text
  6. 6. Advent of OpenURL• Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos.• Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request.• A-Z list (e.g., e-journal, e-books): o Knowledge base (KB) with librarys holdings. o Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking. o Indicates provider of "appropriate copy"• A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")
  7. 7. OpenURL: syntax, resolver, linking nodesSource CitationA, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objectsfor the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44(November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessedOctober 24, 2010).Target Link (example using OpenURL syntax, similar to Source OpenURL)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
  8. 8. Example of Resolver Menu PageMatthew Reidsma, “jQuery for Customizing Hosted Library Services", http://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/11 (accessed April 19, 2012)
  9. 9. Pros & Cons of OpenURLPros:• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers.• Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers exceeded proprietary linking: OpenURL scales better.Cons:• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: more difficult to pinpoint cause of link failures.• OpenURL linking not improved significantly in last 10 years.• No systematic method exists to benchmark OpenURLs.
  10. 10. Identifying source of problem…"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed orstrongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolversis the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLsby databases (for example, A&I products)."Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report forUKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.Defining methodology for approaching problemRecently, researchers have indicated the need for metadataquality 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.
  11. 11. Année philologique OpenURL Study 2008 Cornell study led by Adam Chandler* • Problem: Too often links sent from Aph did not successfully resolve to requested resource. • Objective: Examine quality of OpenURLs offered to users by Aph in order to improve the linking. Aph Study investigated: • Faulty citation metadata from source database. • Method to evaluate the OpenURLs.*Chandler, Adam. 2009. Results of L’Année philologique online OpenURL Quality Investigation: MellonPlanning Grant Final Report.http://metadata.library.cornell.edu/oq/files/200902%20lannee-mellonreport-openurlquality-final.pdf.
  12. 12. Scoring System & Aph Study OutcomesConcept of scoring in Aph study (based on B. Hughes study)* • establish a baseline for comparison; • results to be shared with data providers; • develop a best practice.Problem analysis in Aph study limited to: • source link • presence/absence of citation metadata elementsResults: • OpenURL quality model: compares elements in Aph OpenURLs to those of other providers. • No scoring was achieved for Aph, but model is first step towards scoring system.*Hughes, Baden. 2004. Metadata Quality Evaluation: Experience from the Open Language ArchivesCommunity. In Digital Libraries: International Collaboration and Cross-Fertilization. Ed. ZhaonengChen et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 320-329.
  13. 13. Creation of IOTAIOTA is formed inJanuary 2010• when NISO accepts proposal to take Aph Study to wider community.
  14. 14. IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groupsIOTA• 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;
  15. 15. IOTA & KBART: related through OpenURL• IOTA: – analyzing data sent from OpenURL source to link resolver.• KBART: – creating formatting best practices for data sent from content providers to knowledge base (and link resolver) vendors.
  16. 16. IOTA’s Basic Assumptions• Results are achieved through an analytical investigation of how OpenURL links work.• Practical: Not the OpenURL standard is addressed, but links (OpenURLs) generated by standard.• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant improvement in linking success rate. o Motto: "small changes. big improvements"
  17. 17. IOTA’s Desired Outcomes: …a continuation of Aph Study• Produce qualitative reports that will help OpenURL providers quickly compare their OpenURL quality to that of their peers.• Develop community-recognized index for measuring the quality of OpenURL links generated by content providers.• Method: o fair; o transparent; o scalable across all OpenURLs and their providers.
  18. 18. How is comparing OpenURLs useful?• 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.
  19. 19. OpenURL Reports
  20. 20. Report Filters
  21. 21. All elements used by a vendor (source report)
  22. 22. All vendors using an element (metric report)
  23. 23. Reports for OpenURL data contributors
  24. 24. All databases from a contributor with specific metric
  25. 25. OpenURL Quality Index: Rating vendors by their OpenURLs1. Core elements:• Any element contained in IOTAs OpenURL reporting system;• 23M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content providers.2. Scoring system based on assumption: • Correlation exists between o # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & o ability of OpenURLs to link to specific content.3. Weighting assigned to core elements:• Based on relative importance o spage vs atitle o issn vs jtitle o doi/pmid vs date, etc.
  26. 26. OpenURL Quality Indexpreliminary 2010 version, for all OpenURL types
  27. 27. Preliminary Vendor Completeness Report limited to article type OpenURLs
  28. 28. Further investigation was needed• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way: o Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage, etc.) o 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? o knowledge base, o resolver, o full-text provider (target).• High "completeness" score of OpenURLs not always indicative of "success" in linking to full texts o Combination of indexes, incl. “success index”, developed by IOTA and/or other groups may lead to more precise metrics.
  29. 29. Weighting by Stepwise Regression• Systematic approach used for weighting (suggested by Phil Davis).• Preliminary test on a set of OpenURLs that resolved with the EBSCO and SerialsSolutions link resolvers.• Removed a single element and checked failure percentage w/o that element. Repeated procedure for all elements.• Elements with greater impact on link failure had higher weighting.Preliminary results from a set of 1,500 OpenURLs: atitle aulast date issn issue spage title volume 2.64 0.07 1.08 84.71 28.08 38.57 0 77.6• With weights based on the failure rates, the correlation coefficient between the provider level completeness index and the average OpenURL success for that provider was a strong .80
  30. 30. Effect of Link Resolver on Failure Rate• Resolvers can be more or less “forgiving”. – E.g. if a link is built on ISSN, volume, issue, and start page, if ANY element is missing, then link is set to NOT SHOW on resolver menu page. – Note: Different resolver vendors and libraries may use other settings.• Different configurations  different failure rates  different weightings – Concept of “standard weights” and “single completeness index per provider” is not realistic.
  31. 31. It’s about the process• Completeness logic not disproved: – Environment-specific element weights and corresponding completeness index still possible – If limited to • (a) particular resolver & • (b) specific linking permissions
  32. 32. Other Take-AwaysSeveral factors involved in perceived “link failure”:1. Bad or missing metadata in the OpenURL link.2. Inaccurate holdings data within the resolver’s knowledge base3. Flexibility of syntax to the target - e.g., target supports at least two: OpenURL syntax, DOI link, proprietary link structure.4. Flexibility of resolution logic at the target - i.e., target finds way to create link using available data when some data missing or wrong.5. User expectations - e. g., link resolver provided link to OPAC or ILL form, but user was expecting full text.- IOTA focused on (1)- KBART working on (2)- User education could address (4)- Displaying OpenURL button only if full text available could address (5)
  33. 33. Questions? • http://openurlquality.niso.org • http://www.niso.org/workrooms/openurlqualityRafal KasprowskiElectronic Resources LibrarianRice UniversityFondren Library MS 44Houston, TX 77005rk11@rice.eduhttp://www.slideshare.net/rkaspro