Building a Better Knowledgebase: An Investigation of Current Practical Uses and Requirements


Published on

While knowledgebases have become essential tools for electronic resources management, little research has been done about how practitioners have integrated them into their everyday workflows. Inspired by a partnership with the GOKb project, which aims to build an open source knowledgebase, librarians at North Carolina State University set out to investigate the practical requirements, areas of improvement, and desired enhancements that librarians have for their knowledgebases. During this program, the presenters will describe the results of a survey about knowledgebase use sent to electronic resources managers across the country. The survey results will be supplemented by individual points of view gathered from in-depth interviews with selected respondents.The program will conclude with a look at how the findings of the investigation can be applied to the GOKb project. At the end of the session, the attendee should walk away with an understanding of trends in knowledgebase management, areas where the greatest improvement is needed, and ideas for enhancing knowledgebase functionality in an open source setting.

Maria Collins
Head of Acquisitions and Discovery, North Carolina State University
Maria Collins is the head of Acquisitions and Discovery at North Carolina State University Libraries. The Acquisitions & Discovery department was formed through the merger of acquisitions and cataloging in June 2012. Her other positions held at NCSU since 2005 include serials librarian, associate head of Acquisitions and the head of Content Acquisitions and Licensing. She previously worked as serials librarian and serials coordinator at Mississippi State University Libraries. Maria is editor of Serials Review and was the column editor for SR's Electronic Journal Forum. She also chairs the team developing NCSU's locally developed electronic resource management system, E-Matrix, and participates in the Kuali OLE and Global Open KnowledgeBase (GOKb) projects.

Katherine Hill
North Carolina State University
Katherine Hill is a library fellow in Acquisitions and Discovery, at North Carolina State University Libraries. In that role, she has been involved in planning and designing the open source knowledge base GOKb as well as e-acquisitions workflows for the open source ILS, Kuali OLE.

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

  • Be the first to like this

Building a Better Knowledgebase: An Investigation of Current Practical Uses and Requirements

  1. 1. Building a Better Knowledgebase: ACommunity PerspectiveKate Hill, NCSU Libraries FellowMaria Collins, Head of Acquisitions & DiscoveryNorth Carolina State University Libraries
  2. 2. Or Joining the Goat Rodeo!
  3. 3. Outline of Talk• Introduction and Context for Survey: GOKb• Methodology• Where KBs stand now• KBs and the Future: Movement in the KB space• Take-aways
  4. 4. Why?• Build a picture of the current methods of KBmanagement• Understand the mindset of the Goat Herder (ERLibrarians)• Learn improved ways of CommunityWrangling/Building
  5. 5. Rounding up the Herd: Data Gathering• Make up:– 19 questions, multiple choice/open answer– Three categories• Targeted listservs and librarians who care about KBs• Interviewed five volunteers
  6. 6. The goats who came back: Data analysis• 64 Respondents• Coding, Categorizing, and Graphing.• Questions for interviews to further elucidate findings
  7. 7. How many goats do we need anyway:Defining a KB
  8. 8. The keyword is Comprehensive
  9. 9. “Include Streaming Media and OtherNon-Book, Non-Journal E-Resources”• Streaming Media/ Digital music and scores• IR/locally hosted content• Data sets• Standard IDs• Publisher information• OA content• Article level metadata• Local catalogs
  10. 10. “All of our Information is in One Place”The Global and the Local are equally importantAccess again rises to the top
  11. 11. Defining a Knowlegebase“It knows everything that is online and has a link toeverything that is online to get the user there, itprovides access and the metadata of title, date, url,package and publisher about all electronic resources.”
  12. 12. Goats on the move: Services we want touse our KB data
  13. 13. • Providing Access is highly important• ERM/Discovery-newer or not used
  14. 14. “The Link Resolver is in Constant Use”Access again!
  15. 15. The Grass is Always Greener: A Caveatabout KB Problems
  16. 16. “Its Hard to Say, Its a “Goat Rodeo" OutThere.”Not consistent because certain formats are a messAs librarians, we often only see the problems, not the successes
  17. 17. Problems with the Data
  18. 18. “Our Serials are a Mess”
  19. 19. “Content Vendors are unable to tell uswhat they are selling”Librarians feel out of the data loop
  20. 20. “Bad data, bad data, bad data”
  21. 21. “The data is not updated frequently, if atall”
  22. 22. “Faulty vendor-supplied metadata”Most inaccuracies reported=categories tied directly to patron access (not titlesthis time!)
  23. 23. “There are title inconsistencies evenwithin an aggregator’s own contentplatforms!”Titles continue to be problematicPart and parcel with Change Tracking issues
  24. 24. “Ebook data is sketchy.”Much smaller data set/types of fields noted - harder to draw conclusionsMany of these would be brand new to KBs
  25. 25. Solving KB problems: What thecommunity would like to see improved
  26. 26. “Improvement of any or all of the aboveproblem”
  27. 27. “Greater Ability to Fix Errors WithoutGoing Through Cumbersome ReportingProcess”Relates directly to issues with slowness, title tracking, and communication
  28. 28. Importance of Tracking Changes overTime
  29. 29. “more consistency in quality of dataacross publishers”
  30. 30. “Notifications When Updates Have BeenMade to Certain Collections”
  31. 31. They are all important; Choosing the best
  32. 32. Importance of metadata for ManagingJournals
  33. 33. Importance of Metadata for ManagingEbooks
  34. 34. One size does not fit all!• Additional dataelements needed todescribe otherformats• Ebooks• Streaming media
  35. 35. Streaming Media: Beyond the usualMetadata desired•Date (year, start/end dates)•File types (media/content type)•Length of film (run time)•Author•Section level URL•Source name•Equipment needed•Usage restrictions•Sub start/end dates•Director, creators and actors•Studio•Authentication type•Database URL
  36. 36. Movement in the KB space: FutureDirection and Possibilities
  37. 37. Integration with the ILS: No longer anisolated service
  38. 38. StandardsONIX
  39. 39. Join the KB rodeo: KB+, GOKb, andNational KBs
  40. 40. KB+: Balancing Act
  41. 41. • Mellon Grant, April 2012-Dec2013• Knowledgebase for KualiOLE• Build a Global OpenKnowledgebase (GOKb) thatwill be communitymaintained• Focus on data managementand integration servicesCommunity SourceProjects: Better Together
  42. 42. GOKb Partners
  43. 43. Initial GOKb scope• Knowledgebase for Kuali OLE• Community managed data• The “managed collection”• Not a replacement for vendor Kbs• Open dataset available to all• Way for libraries and vendors to share identifiers
  44. 44. GOKb TimelineGOKb and KB+collaborate on datamodelGOKb Phase I:Proof of ConceptReleaseGOKb funded byAndrew W. MellonFoundation and KualiOLE Partner librariesGOKb PublicReleaseContinued communitydevelopment withsupport of Kuali OLE,JISC, and future ProjectPartnersGOKb Phase II:Partner Release
  45. 45. Concerns about GOKb• Quality of data• Amount of work/time required• Training• Managing multiple kbs/integratingdata• Managing varied local data• Size of the community/adequateparticipation• Provider/Publisher Cooperation• Timely updates• Admin Support• Need to see utility to daily work• Understanding global data/changes• Comparison to Commercial KBs• Consistent decision-making• Auto vs manual updates to data• Varied community expertise• Tracking who performedchanges/Source of changes• Money• Use of standards• Competence of permanent staffinvolved at GOKb
  46. 46. Principles
  47. 47. Community Data ManagementRoles•GOKb editors•OLE partner editors•Other editors•Data contributors
  48. 48. Co-referencing Service:Building a bridge between identifiers and resources
  49. 49. International Cooperation and National KBs
  50. 50. Also in this space: LOCKSS, Keepers• LOCKSS: Preservationof content; concernwith entitlements• The Keepers Registry:knowing who isarchiving content; alsoconcerned withentitlements
  51. 51. Take-aways • KB’s are considered coresystems for providing accessto e-resources.• The community expects a KBto include everythingelectronic and licensed.• Strong concerns exist aboutthe information supply chain– speed, accuracy andstandards adoption.
  52. 52. Take-aways•The community is stronglyinterested in accurate datarelated to the title, not onlytitle normalization but alsotitle history.•There are strong concernsabout data quality, thecommunity is hopeful thatprojects like GOKb will make adifference. Wondering….Can we do it?
  53. 53. Take-aways• People want systems thatintegrate and want to solvethe problem of siloed data.• The community values bothglobal and local data, whichexpands the scope of KBsbeyond access tomanagement• There is movement in theKB space – solutions andnew directions will soonfollow.Relying on each other
  54. 54. Questions?• It may be a goat rodeoout there, but imaginethe possibilities!