Hagedorn, "Seamless Sharing: NYU, HathiTrust, ReCAP and the Cloud Library"
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•71 views
This presentation was provided by Kat Hagedorn of The University of Michigan, during the NISO event, "Library Resource Management Systems: New Challenges, New Opportunities," held October 8 - 9, 2009.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Hagedorn, "Seamless Sharing: NYU, HathiTrust, ReCAP and the Cloud Library"
Similar to Hagedorn, "Seamless Sharing: NYU, HathiTrust, ReCAP and the Cloud Library" (20)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Hagedorn, "Seamless Sharing: NYU, HathiTrust, ReCAP and the Cloud Library"
- 1. KAT HAGEDORN HATHITRUST SPECIAL PROJECTS COORDINATOR UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES OCTOBER 9, 2009 Seamless Sharing: NYU, HathiTrust, ReCAP and the Cloud Library With thanks to Constance Malpas at OCLC and John Wilkin at University of Michigan for their considerable contributions
- 2. Overview Need for cloud library Our pilot project Brief overview of HathiTrust Scope and process for pilot project Expectations and benefits
- 3. Cloud Library, not cloud computing Similar but vastly different Necessity/desire to share resources leverage shared investment, reduce local cost Multiple digital and print repositories Repositories can now move into a “cloud” that will become a shared network resource What infrastructure needed?
- 4. Registry Transfers Borrowing System Shared Collections Withdrawals Retrievals Commitments Holdings Loans Disclose Aggregate holdings and joint commitments constitute a shared asset enabling collaborative management strategies Procedures Policies Infrastructure Assets Local Collections Off-Site Collections ReCAP Digitized Library Collections
- 5. Perceived need Already good support of other “virtual” shared services, e.g., ILL, doc delivery What exists in off-site storage and digital repositories that isn’t currently accessible? Collection development mechanisms need to discover accessibility and preservation statuses How should we build such a service for consumers?
- 6. Partners in pilot NYU – model customer Acute space pressures; major library renovation Limited mandate to build local collection of record ReCAP – model supplier Large-scale shared academic storage collection HathiTrust – model supplier Large-scale shared digital repository OCLC Research and CLIR – consultants & convener
- 7. Demand for services Multiple, sometimes overlapping, reasons institutions will be interested in being part of a cloud library preserving titles that are rare and/or special in some manner remove titles that are duplicated across many institutions added value of shared materials in digital repository (discovery, search) contributing to a public good
- 8. A bit about HathiTrust To contribute to the common good by collecting, organizing, preserving, communicating, and sharing the record of human knowledge materials converted from print improve access …to meet the needs of the co-owning institutions reliable and accessible electronic representations coordinate shared storage strategies “public good” …sustaining the historical record simultaneously …centralized …open
- 9. Growth of HathiTrust Includes ingest of materials not from Google (GBS)
- 10. Goals of pilot study service expectations for both digital and print repositories cost/benefit analyses for sharing resources processes for discovery of shareable titles not the build-out of technical solutions
- 11. N=7.6M ReCAP ReCAP N=3.8M HathiTrust Material that NYU can already source through existing ILL – enhance local collection Material that NYU can obtain through HT dependent on copyright status – enhance ‘local’ collection N=2.3M opportunities for institutional cooperation shared policy frameworks joint service agreements increased operational efficiencies Intersections Material that NYU may choose to relegate with appropriate service level agreement Material that NYU can relegate with a high degree of confidence
- 12. Process for discovery of overlap Ingestion on a monthly basis Checking of OCLC numbers (without can’t be processed)– use of xID to derive more New data structure…
- 13. Harvest Hathi metadata Derive add’l OCLC numbers via xID Extract WorldCat data Extract OCLC numbers Normalize rights values Process, index, analyze Join Hathi and WorldCat data Monthly data harvest 2 weeks per cycle to process Rights anomalies report OCLCnum report Overlap analysis report
- 14. HathiTrust: Looking forward Ingesting from 4 institutions (UC, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan), more to come Moving from off-site storage scanning to main libraries Result: slight changes in number of PD volumes Change in membership …broader base of institutions for cost-sharing Future contracts will mostly be picklists Internet Archive ingest starts this winter/late fall Completion of TRAC certification
- 15. Expectations Service expectations for both HathiTrust and ReCAP turnaround time continuity of operations access privileges For ReCAP, agreements similar to current processes With HathiTrust, all are par for the course
- 16. Partners in cloud library with HathiTrust With HathiTrust as a service partner, institutions can reap the benefits of… preservation of texts and metadata longevity and perpetuity trust and reliability access to titles not held by library (comprehensive) opportunity for voice in HathiTrust development
- 17. Outcome Increased reliance on a network of collections and services with a robust underpinning of shared policy and service infrastructures that are jointly owned by participating libraries Naturally, as number of participants grows, value of partnership increases…
- 18. Questions? Constance Malpas (OCLC): malpasc@oclc.org John Wilkin (HathiTrust): jpwilkin@umich.edu Kat Hagedorn (HathiTrust): khage@umich.edu http://hathitrust.org/ hathitrust-info@umich.edu
Editor's Notes
- We want people to perceive an analogy with cloud-sourcing core business services (storage, distribution) in the library environment -- this motivated partly by economic imperatives (opportunity to leverage shared investment, reduce local cost) but also by a fundamental transformation in the way that library services are consumed in the network
- A system diagram. We already have reasonably good infrastructure to support ‘virtual’ shared collections via inter-lending and document delivery. What we lack is a view of the assets that are locked up in digital repositories and off-site storage. To make the cloud library work, we need to make the preservation status and availability of this content more available for collection management decision making. We also need to understand the service expectations that consumers will bring to the table. Data flows and business processes that will need to be supported in a large-scale shared collections environment; it requires that we make print/digital repositories part of a shared library infrastructure (the dotted line around shared collections). But before we build that kind of infrastructure, we have to figure out what kinds of inter-institutional agreements will actually support a wide-scale shift to reliance on shared collections. The 'Cloud Library' project is seeking to expand the scope and scale of shared collections by making digital repositories (Hathi, primarily) and aggregate storage inventory (ReCAP, MLAC, SRLF etc -- the 1 billion books that we've already socked away in high-density facilities) part of the core service infrastructure. We've got a good, robust and dependable architecture for informal collection sharing via ILL-- what we lack is a comparable set of social agreements and registry services for the large-scale print and digital repository collections.
- Mass digitization has created an opportunity for libraries to rethink the function of locally held inventory. The combination of large-scale digital access (via subscription mechanisms, in the main), large-scale preservation repositories (Hathi), and the already extant 'latent' infrastructure in our large-scale storage collections provides the foundation for a new collections economy that can free up a tremendous amount of library resource. Sharing via ILL-- mechanisms for disclosing holdings and the policies that govern inter-lending practices.
- Worth noting here that NYU is representative of a large cohort of academic institutions that are looking for ways to participate in a 'multi-institutional' model of library management (this is a useful hook for the people who've read the CLIR “No Brief Candle” report that Paul Courant helped write).
- The scope of the CL project is really limited to the 'social/economic infrastructure' embodied in service agreements and not the build-out of technical solutions.
- The intersection between NYU and HathiTrust holdings creates opportunities for changed management of physical inventory at NYU (and other institutions), as does the intersection between NYU and ReCAP holdings. The nature of the opportunity varies according to the relative ‘availability’ of content in digital or print form as well as local demand patterns. The intersection of NYU/Hathi/ReCAP collections represents a particularly significant opportunity: titles in the public domain can be sourced from Hathi; titles in copyright can be discovered and searched in Hathi and delivered from ReCAP. Note that ReCAP and Hathi collections are growing at a faster pace than NYU’s own holdings, accelerating the rate at which NYU can increase its reliance on the shared repositories. Hathi is adding several hundred thousand volumes per month. ReCAP is adding about 57K vols per month. NYU is probably adding under 500K volumes to its collections annually. The opportunities for virtual enhancement of local collections are on the periphery.
- Process currently in place for harvesting, merging and analyzing Hathi and WorldCat data. Some steps taken longer than others, dependent on staff and computing resources. Need about 2 weeks per cycle; Hathi data made available on monthly cycle. Current schedule is to draw down HT data the first week of the month, with the aim completing processing and indexing by mid-month. This gives OCLC about 10 days to identify patterns and discuss with partners before next harvest. In terms of process, OCLC harvests HT data, finds those with an OCLC number (critical info), incorporates ReCAP holdings, and the result is a determination of the overlap of the three "repositories." Having identifying numbers is critical because there is no other way to appropriately match across the repositories. OCLC numbers are best, but other numbers can be folded into the OCLC processing routines.
- All these are important to fulfill the needs of the cloud library.