Scene setting: New directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives, museums   G ünter Waibel Karen Smith -Yos...
Taylor Family Digital Library
Sheila Cannell Director, Library Services University of Edinburgh LAM: Campus Context
Sheila Cannell Director, Library Services University of Edinburgh “ I'm really quite convinced that what we have to do is ...
Anne Van Camp Director, Smithsonian Institution Archives LAM:  Opportunity & Challenge
Anne Van Camp Director, Smithsonian Institution Archives LAM:  Opportunity & Challenge We are 19 museums, 9 research cente...
OCLC Research LAM Workshops Princeton Smithsonian Victoria & Albert U of Edinburgh Yale
Beth McKillop Keeper of Asia ,  Victoria & Albert Museum One Search
Beth McKillop Keeper of Asia ,  Victoria & Albert Museum “ The William Morris question remains with us. How do you show wh...
V&A Core Systems Integration Project (CSIP) <ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Data harvesting for archival materials </li...
Yale Office of Digital Assets and Infrastructure (ODAI) slide courtesy of Meg Bellinger,Ann Green, Louis E. King Yale Univ...
<ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>LAMs as OAI data content providers </li></ul><ul><li>ODAI as harvester </li></ul>
Outcome: SI Collections Search Center <ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Central Index </li></ul><ul><li>Webservices </li>...
 
New Directions for Metadata Workflows Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February 1...
Current Descriptive Metadata Practices <ul><li>2007 survey of 18 RLG Partners in the US and the UK that:  </li></ul><ul><l...
Workplace environment
Materials handled 78% handle both published and unpublished items
Types of materials described
Metadata description tools <ul><li>65%  Integrated Library System  (Innovative Interfaces Millennium, Exlibris/Aleph or Vo...
Data structures used
Thesauri and controlled vocabularies <ul><li>Two thirds or more use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Library of Congress Subject Hea...
45% build and maintain one or more local thesaurus  (especially archives, museums,  institutional repositories, digital  l...
Image: from the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” Who knows what’s hidden in our  collections?
What percentage of your collection do you estimate has not been adequately described – and is unlikely to be described wit...
Sharing guidelines and strategies with other units
RLG Partners Metadata Creation Workflows Survey <ul><li>Working Group conducted 2008 survey of RLG Partner heads or direct...
Crosswalks between schemas used (70% have conversion tools)
 
 
Streamlining metadata creation workflows <ul><li>Descriptive metadata elements </li></ul><ul><li>Procedures </li></ul><ul>...
Harnessing the power of terminologies Merrilee Proffitt [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February 10, 2...
Making soup from the alphabet <ul><li>GSAFD FAST LCSH LCTGM LCNAF GMGPC MeSH AAT ULAN TGN CSH </li></ul>
Terminologies “summit,” September 2007 <ul><li>Establish priorities based on a “strawman” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Search opt...
Key findings <ul><li>Enhancing search terms </li></ul><ul><li>“End users should be our primary concern – if they don’t fin...
Enhancing search <ul><li>Using web services to… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggesting search terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A...
 
 
 
 
 
“ Local” terminologies <ul><li>Additional interviews conducted with institutions who maintained “local” terminologies </li...
Names, Identities Hub, VIAF, WorldCat Identities Thom Hickey [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February ...
  Names touch everything….   Authors Publishers Institutions Musicians Families Government agencies Artists Fictional char...
Names can be ambiguous… <ul><li>“ John Adams” </li></ul><ul><li>…  the US president?  </li></ul><ul><li>…  the US composer...
 
Networking Names Advisory Group
Cooperative Identities Hub <ul><li>Framework to concatenate and merge authoritative information </li></ul><ul><li>Gateway ...
Hub objectives <ul><li>Increase metadata creation efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Easier to identify identity regardless of l...
Hub functions <ul><li>Searches by both people and software applications </li></ul><ul><li>Edit: Add information, merge,  s...
Virtual International Authority File <ul><li>Matches names across 20 authority files </li></ul><ul><ul><li>12.5 million re...
One persona, many representations http://viaf.org/viaf/95216565
 
Other efforts <ul><li>ISNI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International Standard Name Identifier </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ORCID </li>...
International Standard Name Identifier <ul><li>Driven by ‘rights’ holders </li></ul><ul><li>Need standard way to exchange ...
Open Researcher and Contributor ID <ul><li>Driven by scientific publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Need to exchange information,...
WorldCat Identities <ul><li>A page for every name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>25 million personal names </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><...
 
 
 
 
Collaboration Continuum
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

OCLC Research @ U of Calgary: New directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives, museums

2,408 views

Published on

Presentation used as scene setting for 2 days worth of discussion around library, archive & museum convergence, metadata workflows and single search at the University of Calgary.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,408
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
37
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This presentation is our round-about way of introducing ourselves, as well as the focus on integration for this visit. We hope that sharing some of the things we work on which might be pertinent to your quest will appropriately set the scene for the discussion sessions to follow.
  • The University of Calgary’s Library &amp; Cultural Resources is in the midst of attempting something bold and daring: integrating its diverse units which collect, manage and share cultural knowledge into a coherent whole. This inspired vision has its physical manifestation in the Taylor Family Digital Library building emerging in the heart of campus, and its intellectual expression in the teams which issued reports charting a path into the future.
  • The University of Calgary is in the vanguard of convergence, and I predict that other institutions will look to you for guidance and leadership. That’s the good news. The bad news: Since you are in the vanguard, there are no blueprints for how to achieve your aspirations of integration. However, there is comfort in knowing that there are some fellow travelers who have taken stock of their situation and come to similar conclusions about the necessity for convergence, and a renewed emphasis on rare and unique materials. Here is one of those fellow travelers, Sheila Cannell from the University of Edinburgh.
  • [play audio, 0:29]
  • Here is another voice from the forefront of convergence, just to make you feel a little bit better about your challenges. This is Anne Van Camp explaining the challenge faced by the Smithsonian Institution.
  • [Play soundfile 0:23]
  • Both the Smithsonian and the University of Edinburgh were among the institutions where OCLC Research held library, archive and museum convergence workshops in 2007/2008. (You can see the rest of the institutions we worked with on the slide.) The stated goal for these workshops was to learn about existing collaborations, and catalyze even deeper working relationships among the LAMs at these campus (or campus-like) institutions. As I could tell from the citations in your documents, many of you have read the report which summarized the findings from these workshops. The way we have structured some of our discussions today has been informed by what we’ve learned in these five all-day events.
  • One of the clearest message we took away from the workshops: every single one of the institutions we visited grappled with what we wound up calling “one search”: the idea that a user should be able to determine with a single search which materials on a given individual or topic were held in campus collections. This is how Beth McKillop from the V&amp;A frames the question. [See also Ricky’s blog posting at http://hangingtogether.org/?p=410]
  • [play audio 0:14]
  • The Victoria &amp; Albert has invested a good amount of work into single search – on the slide, you’ll see a systems diagram showing how the information from their archives, museum and library collection flows together. The initial objective for this system was to use it as support for Visitor Service staff to answer inquiries such as the William Morris question.
  • Yale University, another graduate from our workshop series, has also made ambitious plans to turn the “Information Silos of the 20 th century” into an integrated “21 st Century Scholarly Ecosystem”. These activities is facilitated by the Office of Digital Assets and Infrastructure (ODAI), and include…
  • … cross collections discovery for the three major museums on Yale campus and the University Library. Their strategy for integration creates a central database of university assets by harvesting collections using Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (PMH). The museums in particular like this strategy since outfitting them as OAI data content providers empowers them not only to share data for Yale campus-wide integration, but also with other aggregators such as ARTstor.
  • In November, the Smithsonian launched a new website called “Collections Search Center”, a search service bringing together 2 million records and 265K multimedia files from 45 Smithsonian units. The Smithsonian Office of the Chief Information Officer played a key role in coordinating the units and putting the technology for this single search across Smithsonian collections in place. To support the Collection Search Center, the created a centralized metadata index plus a set of web services that can search, access and display metadata and derivatives of digital assets held within the Smithsonian’s major collections.
  • And, of course, the University of Calgary is also investigating single search across all campus collections. We’re eager to learn more from you what role Summon can play in bringing resources together, and what your plans are for a converged future. We hope that the agenda for our two days together will instigate a broad discussion about how to best leverage library, archive and museum resource for teaching and learning on campus.
  • Responses received from libraries, archives, museums, special collections, institutional repositories, digital library programs. Responses included four of the RLG Partners that participated in the LAM workshops .
  • 86 responses
  • 86 responses
  • Manuscripts, archives, ephemera, photographs, postcards, scrapbooks, clippings files, maps, architectural records -- So many of our special collections are hidden in boxes in warehouses. No one knows what’s there.
  • In 2007 we conducted a survey of 18 large RLG partner institutions that had multiple centers of “metadata creation” that were already reported to be working together in some degree – libraries, archives, museums, digital libraries, etc - . within one campus. Of the 73 responses, almost half said that over 31% of their collections were inadequately described, and unlikely to be without further funding. The breakdown by unit type is more striking – most museums said that half or more of their collections were inadequately described, and a third of the archival collections. (Library technical services responses had the best described collections – only 18% responded half or more.) OCLC just launched a comprehensive survey of special collections and archives in academic and research libraries - following up on the ARL survey back in 1998. The director of  every library that belongs to the RLG Partnership in the U.S. or Canada, ARL, CARL (Canada), IRLA, and the Oberlin Group received a copy. Will the percentages of inadequately described collections differ much from what we see here? (Results will be published in mid-2010.)
  • Owners and creators of terminologies such at the Library of Congress (Library of Congress Subject Headings, Thesaurus for graphic materials, etc.), the J. Paul Getty Trust (Art &amp; Architecture Thesaurus, etc), the National Library of Medicine (Medical Subject Headings), and the American Library Association (Guidelines On Subject Access To Individual Works Of Fiction, Drama, Etc), had invested decades of staff time and expertise in creating and maintaining vocabularies that aid in describing and defining materials held in cultural heritage institutions. In turn, libraries, archives, and museums have applied terms from these vocabularies to descriptions of items and collections in their care. So far, there has been no large-scale effort to leverage the power inherent in the structured vocabularies themselves, or to the terms that have been applied in the descriptive process. Demonstrator project that will hopefully show the possibilities for leveraging terminologies and inspire further work in this area. Harness the inherent power in these structured vocabularies: preferred terms, alternative terms, deprecated terms, related terms, broader terms, narrower terms, translations (in multilingual vocabularies). Relationships for a concept/heading can expresss equivalence, hierarchy, or association.
  • Libraries archives museums represented Small and large, publically and privately funded Range of functional roles: books catalogers, visual materials catalogers, art librarians, archivists, those that deal with digital materials. Strawman: Metadata creation Search optimization Support terminologies management (including maintaining local terms) Support “social” terminologies: collaborative editing and creation; contribution of data by non library experts. Value added intelligence (creating relationships between terminologies) Each asked to present strawman to 3-4 “like” colleagues at different institutions to sift and sort what would be most useful.
  • In each environment, the web service will be used to expand users’ search terms, by exploiting terminologies. The institution will provide the users’ search term to the web service, and the web service will return a list of results (in XML) that will include terms that “relate” to the users search term; results may include deprecated, narrower, broader, or related terms that are usually not embedded in a resource description. The XML results can be used at the discretion of the institution (to expand a user’s search terms automatically; to offer additional, related term for the user to use, etc.).
  • Names and Identities Smith-Yoshimura &amp; Hickey
  • Names and Identities Smith-Yoshimura &amp; Hickey
  • Names and Identities Smith-Yoshimura &amp; Hickey
  • Names and Identities Smith-Yoshimura &amp; Hickey
  • Names and Identities Smith-Yoshimura &amp; Hickey
  • OCLC Research @ U of Calgary: New directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives, museums

    1. 1. Scene setting: New directions for metadata workflows across libraries, archives, museums  G ünter Waibel Karen Smith -Yoshimura Merrilee Proffitt Thom Hickey University of Calgary February 10 th 2010
    2. 2. Taylor Family Digital Library
    3. 3. Sheila Cannell Director, Library Services University of Edinburgh LAM: Campus Context
    4. 4. Sheila Cannell Director, Library Services University of Edinburgh “ I'm really quite convinced that what we have to do is to boost up the whole area of what would be called the intellectual capital of the university, which I think happens within our special collections, within our archives (both those that are older and those that are being created now), and in our museums. I'm really interested in how we reposition the traditional library into that more general area.” LAM: Campus Context
    5. 5. Anne Van Camp Director, Smithsonian Institution Archives LAM: Opportunity & Challenge
    6. 6. Anne Van Camp Director, Smithsonian Institution Archives LAM: Opportunity & Challenge We are 19 museums, 9 research centers that are scattered across the world, we have 18 different archives, we have 1 library, but that library has 20 branches, and we have 1 zoo. So it's a rather complicated place, and you can imagine the challenge we face in trying to bring all of this disparate information together.
    7. 7. OCLC Research LAM Workshops Princeton Smithsonian Victoria & Albert U of Edinburgh Yale
    8. 8. Beth McKillop Keeper of Asia , Victoria & Albert Museum One Search
    9. 9. Beth McKillop Keeper of Asia , Victoria & Albert Museum “ The William Morris question remains with us. How do you show what the V&A has to offer to students interested in William Morris: designs by William Morris, archival materials by William Morris, and library books about William Morris.” Single Search
    10. 10. V&A Core Systems Integration Project (CSIP) <ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Data harvesting for archival materials </li></ul><ul><li>Metasearch for library and museum content </li></ul>
    11. 11. Yale Office of Digital Assets and Infrastructure (ODAI) slide courtesy of Meg Bellinger,Ann Green, Louis E. King Yale University's Model for Campus-wide Digital Content Strategy and Implementation (CNI 2009) www.cni.org/tfms/2009b.fall/Presentations/cni_yale_bellinger.pdf
    12. 12. <ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>LAMs as OAI data content providers </li></ul><ul><li>ODAI as harvester </li></ul>
    13. 13. Outcome: SI Collections Search Center <ul><li>Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Central Index </li></ul><ul><li>Webservices </li></ul>
    14. 15. New Directions for Metadata Workflows Karen Smith-Yoshimura [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February 10, 2010
    15. 16. Current Descriptive Metadata Practices <ul><li>2007 survey of 18 RLG Partners in the US and the UK that: </li></ul><ul><li>had “multiple metadata creation centers” on campus </li></ul><ul><li>had some interaction among them </li></ul>Brigham Young U. Center for Jewish History Chemical Heritage Foundation Emory Getty Research Institute Harvard Minnesota Historical Society Princeton Smithsonian Institution Syracuse University U. Aberdeen UC Los Angeles U. Cambridge U. Edinburgh U. Michigan U. Minnesota U. Washington Yale
    16. 17. Workplace environment
    17. 18. Materials handled 78% handle both published and unpublished items
    18. 19. Types of materials described
    19. 20. Metadata description tools <ul><li>65% Integrated Library System (Innovative Interfaces Millennium, Exlibris/Aleph or Voyager, VTLS/Virtua, SirsiDynix/Unicorn or Horizon, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>41% Digital Collections software (CONTENTDM, Luna Insight, MDID, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>31% Institutional Repository software (DSpace, Digital Commons, ePrints, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>31% Collections Management system (TMS, KE Emu, Willoughby, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>25% Digital Asset Management system (Portfolio, TEAMS, MediaBin, ClearStory, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>17% Archival Management system (Archivists’ Toolkit, Archon, etc. </li></ul>
    20. 21. Data structures used
    21. 22. Thesauri and controlled vocabularies <ul><li>Two thirds or more use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Library of Congress Subject Headings, LC/NACO Name Authority File, Art & Architecture Thesaurus </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More than 30% use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, Thesaurus of Graphic Materials I: Subject Terms, Thesaurus of Graphic Materials II: Genre and Physical Characteristic Terms, Union List of Artist Names </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More than 10% use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RBMS Controlled Vocabularies for Use in Rare Book and Special Collections Cataloging, Geographic Names Information Services, Local </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Others used: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ICONCLASS, MeSH, LC Moving Image Materials, NCA Rules for construction of personal and place names, UK Archival Thesaurus for subjects, Chemical Markup Language Dictionaries, Chicago Thesaurus, Universal Decimal Classification for Polar Libraries, Linnean names, UNESCO Thesaurus, International Astronomical Union’s Astronomy Thesaurus, British Educational Thesaurus, Society of American Archivists, Glossary of Archives and Records Terminology, Integrated Taxonomic Information Systems for archeological faunal collections </li></ul></ul>
    22. 23. 45% build and maintain one or more local thesaurus (especially archives, museums, institutional repositories, digital libraries)
    23. 24. Image: from the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” Who knows what’s hidden in our collections?
    24. 25. What percentage of your collection do you estimate has not been adequately described – and is unlikely to be described without additional resources, funding, or both? RLG Programs Descriptive Metadata Practices Survey Results: Data Supplement http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-04.pdf 18% 35% 24% 22%
    25. 26. Sharing guidelines and strategies with other units
    26. 27. RLG Partners Metadata Creation Workflows Survey <ul><li>Working Group conducted 2008 survey of RLG Partner heads or directors of units responsible for creating non-MARC metadata, either solely or in addition to MARC metadata. </li></ul><ul><li>134 responses from 67 RLG Partner institutions. </li></ul><ul><li>Two-thirds used the same staff to create both MARC and non-MARC metadata. </li></ul><ul><li>80% reported that creating non-MARC metadata was part of their “routine workflows”. </li></ul>
    27. 28. Crosswalks between schemas used (70% have conversion tools)
    28. 31. Streamlining metadata creation workflows <ul><li>Descriptive metadata elements </li></ul><ul><li>Procedures </li></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Authority control </li></ul><ul><li>Rights management </li></ul><ul><li>Repurposing data </li></ul><ul><li>Capturing data from other systems </li></ul>
    29. 32. Harnessing the power of terminologies Merrilee Proffitt [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February 10, 2010
    30. 33. Making soup from the alphabet <ul><li>GSAFD FAST LCSH LCTGM LCNAF GMGPC MeSH AAT ULAN TGN CSH </li></ul>
    31. 34. Terminologies “summit,” September 2007 <ul><li>Establish priorities based on a “strawman” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Search optimization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support terminologies management & sharing (including local terms) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support “social interactions” that add value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value added intelligence (creating relationships between terminologies) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>15 participants (45+ views!) </li></ul><ul><li>Lively discussion and prioritization </li></ul>
    32. 35. Key findings <ul><li>Enhancing search terms </li></ul><ul><li>“End users should be our primary concern – if they don’t find anything, they won’t be back” – Amy Lucker, New York University </li></ul><ul><li>Taking “local” global </li></ul><ul><li>“No published terminologies are going to meet all needs. The reason we have local terminologies is because contributing to published terminologies is so difficult.” Jenn Riley, Indiana University </li></ul>
    33. 36. Enhancing search <ul><li>Using web services to… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggesting search terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adding related terms on the fly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Depends on implementation (it’s up to you) </li></ul><ul><li>Query from institution in XML, passed to OCLC, XML passed back to institution, XML parsed by institution, presented in interface. </li></ul>
    34. 42. “ Local” terminologies <ul><li>Additional interviews conducted with institutions who maintained “local” terminologies </li></ul><ul><li>Largely unstructured, some based on existing structures (primarily AAT) </li></ul><ul><li>Maintaining local terms because… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Barriers to contributing to existing structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perception that terms were truly local </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All interested in a cloud environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease creation and maintenance of terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow terms to flow into local systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Facilitate contribution to established terminologies </li></ul></ul>
    35. 43. Names, Identities Hub, VIAF, WorldCat Identities Thom Hickey [email_address] OCLC Research University of Calgary February 10, 2010
    36. 44. Names touch everything…. Authors Publishers Institutions Musicians Families Government agencies Artists Fictional characters Actors Plant discoverers Corporations Pseudonyms Illustrators Editors Translators Correspondents Historical figures Directors Scientists Architects Animals Politicians Inventors Associations Cartographers
    37. 45. Names can be ambiguous… <ul><li>“ John Adams” </li></ul><ul><li>… the US president? </li></ul><ul><li>… the US composer? </li></ul><ul><li>… the British mathematician & astronomer? </li></ul><ul><li>… the British nuclear physicist? </li></ul><ul><li>… or someone else? </li></ul>
    38. 47. Networking Names Advisory Group
    39. 48. Cooperative Identities Hub <ul><li>Framework to concatenate and merge authoritative information </li></ul><ul><li>Gateway to all forms of names without preferring one form over another </li></ul><ul><li>Use social networking model </li></ul><ul><li>Provide a switch to extract relevant information </li></ul><ul><li>for re-use in own contexts </li></ul><ul><li>Create federated trust environment to </li></ul><ul><li>authenticate and authorize contributors </li></ul>
    40. 49. Hub objectives <ul><li>Increase metadata creation efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Easier to identify identity regardless of language or discipline </li></ul><ul><li>Determine preferred form within own context </li></ul><ul><li>Enable contributing agencies to augment own data resources </li></ul><ul><li>Expose information about personal and corporate </li></ul><ul><li>bodies beyond original contexts </li></ul>
    41. 50. Hub functions <ul><li>Searches by both people and software applications </li></ul><ul><li>Edit: Add information, merge, split, flag for deletion </li></ul><ul><li>Create new entities </li></ul><ul><li>Batch update </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Audit trail and rollback </li></ul>
    42. 51. Virtual International Authority File <ul><li>Matches names across 20 authority files </li></ul><ul><ul><li>12.5 million records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>10 million names </li></ul></ul>
    43. 52. One persona, many representations http://viaf.org/viaf/95216565
    44. 54. Other efforts <ul><li>ISNI </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International Standard Name Identifier </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ORCID </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open Researcher and Contributor ID </li></ul></ul><ul><li>WorldCat Identities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A page for every name in WorldCat </li></ul></ul>
    45. 55. International Standard Name Identifier <ul><li>Driven by ‘rights’ holders </li></ul><ul><li>Need standard way to exchange information </li></ul><ul><li>OCLC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participating in standards effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Matching of test files </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VIAF may be used as base file </li></ul></ul>
    46. 56. Open Researcher and Contributor ID <ul><li>Driven by scientific publishers </li></ul><ul><li>Need to exchange information, make systems more usable </li></ul><ul><li>Mostly interested authors of journal literature </li></ul><ul><li>OCLC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Participating in group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possibly sharing metadata </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Possibly working on matching </li></ul></ul>
    47. 57. WorldCat Identities <ul><li>A page for every name </li></ul><ul><ul><li>25 million personal names </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>30 million names total </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes imaginary characters, horses, etc. </li></ul></ul>
    48. 62. Collaboration Continuum

    ×