Rethinking the library catalogue: making search work for the library user

2,460 views
2,341 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,460
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rethinking the library catalogue: making search work for the library user

  1. 1. Rethinking the library catalogue: making search work for the library user Sally Chambers The European Library [email_address] http://twitter.com/schambers3
  2. 2. Challenges for library search <ul><li>To survive the future, a library catalogue has to offer the same user experience as a library user’s favourite search engine </li></ul><ul><li>How can libraries harness web technologies to provide a search engine like experience for their users? </li></ul><ul><li>I hope to outline the challenges faced by librarians to transform the traditional library catalogue into a search-engine like user experience </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introducing to The European Library Unique access point for the catalogues and digital collections of the 48 National Libraries of Europe
  4. 4. Introducing to The European Library www.theeuropeanlibrary.org
  5. 5. Library I.R. protocols a client/server-based protocol for searching and retrieving information from remote databases http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/ http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/ SRU is a standard XML-focused search protocol for Internet search queries, utilizing CQL (Contextual Query Language), a standard syntax for representing queries
  6. 6. Library federated search
  7. 7. The difficulties of federated search
  8. 8. The difficulties of federated search
  9. 9. Results list per country (1)
  10. 10. Results list per country (2)
  11. 11. Issues with federated search <ul><li>Speed of return of results not up to current user expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Search is dependent on individual services outside the library’s control (‘not responding’) </li></ul><ul><li>Results are returned independently and therefore difficult to integrate into a single result list </li></ul><ul><li>Ranking of results is not core functionality of federated search protocols </li></ul>
  12. 12. Towards integrated search The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) is a low-barrier mechanism for repository interoperability. Data Providers are repositories that expose structured metadata via OAI-PMH. Service Providers then make OAI-PMH service requests to harvest that metadata. OAI-PMH is a set of six verbs or services that are invoked within HTTP. http://www.openarchives.org/pmh/
  13. 13. Metadata harvesting protocol http://193.200.14.178:8080/repox/OAIHandler? verb=ListRecords & set= Albymika_0001 &metadataPrefix =oai_dc
  14. 14. Towards integrated search
  15. 15. Integrated results list
  16. 16. Integrated results list <ul><li>Metadata is harvested and indexed in advance – no need to rely on real time federated search </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of search is determined by the library, without needing to rely on remote servers </li></ul><ul><li>As the metadata is in one place it is easier to present an integrated result list </li></ul><ul><li>Ranking search results becomes possible ... but how? </li></ul>
  17. 17. Relevancy ranking in libraries? <ul><li>Users ‘used to good relevancy ranking’, e.g. in web search engines and can’t understand why user experience is generally inferior in libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Ranking needed for results list which contain large amounts of data (for libraries) - estimated 180 million records in The European Library - but not web-scale </li></ul><ul><li>Dealing with a diversity of library materials </li></ul><ul><li>In many different languages </li></ul><ul><li>see: Lewandowski (2009) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Diversity of library resources <ul><li>Metadata (catalogue) records (MARC format) -some link to digital objects, some not </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata records (often Dublin Core format) - linking to digital objects </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing amounts of full-text content with minimal metadata </li></ul><ul><li>In other types of libraries, e-journals, institutional repositories etc. </li></ul><ul><li>A mix of structured and un-structured data </li></ul>
  19. 19. Typical record in MARC format www.loc.gov/marc/
  20. 20. Full-text search www.ifla.org/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records
  21. 21. Full-text search
  22. 22. Full-text search
  23. 23. Full-text search
  24. 24. Full-text search
  25. 25. Faceted search examples
  26. 26. Faceted search examples
  27. 27. Faceted search examples
  28. 28. Faceted search examples
  29. 29. Faceted search examples
  30. 30. Faceted search examples
  31. 31. Ability to sort the results
  32. 32. Faceted search examples
  33. 33. Drop down ‘pick-list’
  34. 34. Faceted search examples
  35. 35. Faceted search examples
  36. 36. Visual search
  37. 37. Faceted search
  38. 38. Facets and ‘dirty’ data
  39. 39. Facets and ‘dirty’ data
  40. 40. Facets and ‘dirty’ data
  41. 41. Facets and ‘dirty’ data
  42. 42. A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe www.ifla.org/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records http:// www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records —or FRBR, sometimes pronounced /ˈfɜrbər/ —is a conceptual entity-relationship model developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that relates user tasks of retrieval and access in online library catalogues and bibliographic databases from a user’s perspective http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records
  43. 43. FRBR essentials
  44. 44. Refining by clustering
  45. 45. Refining by clustering
  46. 46. Libraries and linked data http://id.loc.gov http://viaf.org/
  47. 47. Mobile search … and all of this via a mobile device
  48. 48. References Lewandowski, D (2009) Ranking library materials (Pre-print version) www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/doc/LHT2009_preprint.pdf Karen G. Schneider (2006) How OPACS suck, ALA TechSource How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It) www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html How OPACs Suck, Part 2: The Checklist of Shame www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html How OPACs Suck, Part 3: The Big Picture www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html
  49. 49. Thank you! Sally Chambers The European Library [email_address] http://twitter.com/schambers3

×