KBART ALA Midwinter 2010 Update


Published on

  • 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
  • Hallo everyone. I’m here to give you an overview of the UKSG-sponsored KBART working group. KBART’s goal is to improve the supply of data to link resolvers and knowledge bases, in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of OpenURL linking. So I’ll also be going back to basics to explain the OpenURL since this is still an area that many in our community don’t feel comfortable that they understand.
  • Title by title Survey of 2250 individual Claremont Colleges journal subscriptions (less than 10% of the total number of titles we list) NB: this does NOT include aggregator titles, unsubscribed titles, OR freely available titles
  • Here’s a concrete example at the consortial level – a before and a hoped for after
  • Reconciliation of publisher access list w/ older custom consortium package KB list and reality check Main point is NOT the level of accuracy of the older consortium list (which is far more accurate than the global list), But the number of titles that had to be checked by hand, and the necessity of editing the KB list rather than just passing on the publisher list
  • Reference previous slides – all the different parties in that process are represented Ex Libris – Nettie Lagace Openly – Tom Ventimiglia Serials – Peter T&F – Anna Sage – Simon Swets – Bill Hoffman EBSCO – Oliver Pesch Ingenta – me Credo – Jenny Edinburgh – Liz Stevenson Leicester – Louise Jones Cornell – Adam Chandler Hanford – Chrissie Noonan Claremont – Jason Price California Digital Libraries – Margery Tibbetts
  • KBART ALA Midwinter 2010 Update

    1. 1. KNOWLEDGE BASES AND RELATED TOOLS: A NISO/UKSG RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Jason Price, PhD Claremont Colleges/SCELC KBART Working Group Member ALA Midwinter Jan 16 2010 Boston, MA X X KBART K ? ok ?
    2. 2. KBART: An Introduction <ul><li>K nowledge B ases A nd R elated T ools </li></ul><ul><li>UKSG and NISO collaborative project </li></ul><ul><li>Get better data for everyone – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who provide data (publishers, aggregators) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who process data (link resolvers, ERMs, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those who present data (libraries, consortia) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>All for THOSE WHO USE DATA – library patrons </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Ensuring timely transfer of accurate title access list data to knowledgebases, ERMs, etc. </li></ul>
    3. 3. the Recommended Practice: Unveiled! <ul><li>Hot off the press: posted thursday, TBA Monday </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://bit.ly/kbartRP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What’s inside: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Data supply chain description - from producer to user </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed examination of KB data problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific solutions as best practices that will help avoid these problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aiding adoption & Next steps </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Inaccurate Data – The problem Error Level False (+) including links to inaccessible content False (-) lacking links to accessible content Title Access not activated by publisher Accessible title not listed in KB/Catalog Date Range Part of access not activated by publisher OR Years of access over-represented in KB/Catalog Years of access under-represented in KB/Catalog
    5. 5. Inaccurate Data – Our current responses <ul><li>REACTIVE – correcting data for individual articles that patrons report as inaccessible </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But what about the (large) majority that go unreported </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(esp. the false negatives that prove that “Google has lots of content ’not available through the library’”) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PROACTIVE – before we get (or don’t get) complaints </li></ul><ul><ul><li>title by title or package by package </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>extremely labor intensive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An example </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>Proactive reconciliation of an ejournal package list </li></ul><ul><li>General Process – library, consortium or KB vendor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Re-)Request updated access list from publisher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sample publisher list for accuracy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Translate publisher list to match KB list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Number of titles never matches </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perform ISSN match with MS Access </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Watch for & integrate title changes, mergers, acquisitions and losses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Watch for publisher-reuse of ISSNs/title combinations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identify date discrepancies manually (inconsistent formats & granularity) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decide when its ‘good enough’ and go live/distribute new list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lather, Rinse, Repeat </li></ul></ul>Correcting Inaccurate Data – the hard way
    7. 7. Correcting Inaccurate Data – the hard way 226 titles = 16%
    8. 8. Problem Overview Knowledge bases Date coverage Title relations Licensing Data & transfer Supply chain Compliance accuracy format vol/issue vs date date granularity (day, month, season, year) title changes title mapping abbreviations ISSN/ISBN variations re-use of ISSN effect on licensing genericism/granularity misrepresentation package variations accuracy free content format ownership contacts/feedback mechanisms incentive informal structure unclear responsibilities duplication of effort file format format definitions; shoe-horning age of data accuracy frequency link syntax and granularity
    9. 9. Problems identified and addressed <ul><li>4.2.1 Identifier Inconsistencies </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.2 Title Inconsistencies </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.3 Incorrect Date Coverage </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.4 Inconsistent Date Formatting </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.5 Inconsistencies in Content Coverage Description </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.6 Embargo Inconsistencies </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.7 Data Format and Exchange </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.8 Outdated Holdings Data </li></ul><ul><li>4.2.9 Lack of Customization </li></ul>
    10. 10. Inaccurate Data – The KBART Solutions <ul><li>Standardize transfer of data within and among supply chain participants </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices recommendations specify: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>means of data transfer </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>frequency of updates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>file structure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data elements – Mandatory and Optional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>e.g. Start and end date format & granularity </li></ul></ul></ul>
    11. 12. Desired impact on our work <ul><li>An end to our role as translators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No more badgering publishers to send complete access lists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(List of necessary elements is standardized) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No more teasing out title changes to make the #’s match </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Best practice is to include former titles & issns) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No more waiting for the KB data team to translate data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Standardized format leads to automated ingest) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No more out-of-date access lists </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Regular updates direct from publisher to knowledge base) </li></ul></ul>
    12. 13. Supporting adoption: The web hub <ul><li>Guidelines, FAQ, </li></ul><ul><li>Quick Guides & Video demonstrations </li></ul><ul><li>Case studies </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.uksg.org/kbart </li></ul>
    13. 14. Next steps <ul><li>Definitions for global vs. local updates </li></ul><ul><li>Consortia-specific metadata transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Institution-specific metadata transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Documentation of guidelines for non-text content metadata transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Review of metadata transfer for e-books </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring and enforcing compliance with KBART recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Exchange of ERM data </li></ul>
    14. 15. How can you help? <ul><li>Send the report or web hub link to the publishers you work with and ask them to adopt the practices </li></ul><ul><li>Tell your colleagues about them so they can do the same (particularly consortia representatives) </li></ul><ul><li>Consider reference to KBART in ejournal package license terms </li></ul><ul><li>Join the monitoring group to stay up to date and help us continue to improve KBART </li></ul>
    15. 16. Thanks! <ul><li>http://www.uksg.org/kbart </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart </li></ul><ul><li>Peter McCracken (NISO (ex) co-chair) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Co-founder & Director for Research, Serials Solutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Charlie Rapple (UKSG co-chair) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Head of Marketing Development, TBI Communications </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Jason Price (Working group member) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Head of Collections @ Claremont; SCELC ejournal package analyst </li></ul></ul></ul>
    16. 17. Who’s in KBART? <ul><li>Core working group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Link resolver/ERM suppliers – Ex Libris, Serials Solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publishers – British Medical Journal Group, Taylor & Francis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subscription agents/aggregators – Credo, EBSCO, Swets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consortia – California Digital Library, SCELC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries – Claremont, Cornell, Edinburgh, Leicester, Princeton, Pacific Northwest Technical Lab </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Monitoring group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More of these plus other related groups e.g. NASIG </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anyone can join monitoring group </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sign up for updates: [email_address] </li></ul></ul>