Isko discoverability presentation by lettie conrad and mary somerville july 2013

597 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
597
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Mary starts – our agendaWe’d like to try audience participation, on-the-fly researchSave time for Q/A 
  • Mary
  • Mary
  • Mary
  • Mary
  • Mary -Recent Developments in Cross Sector Communication and Collaboration Since the whitepaper published, there have been several notable developments in cross-sector collaboration toward improved discoverability practices.ODI, formed in 2011 aims at “defining standards and/or best practices for the new generation of library discovery services that are based on indexed search”specifically, they site the need as “given the growing interest and activity in the interactions between information providers and discovery services, this group is interested in establishing a more standard set of practices for the ways that content is represented in discovery services and for the interactions between the creators of these services and the information providers whose resources they represent.” relevant to this session, an ODI survey last fall noted a top barrier to content provider participation in pre-index discovery services is intellectual property concerns, “majority of these respondents reported perceived risk to the value-added data available in their abstracting / indexing (A&I) databases and the need for identification of supplied content in the databases.”
  • Mary: Recent Developments in Cross SectorCommunication and Collaboration (continued)
  • Mary – next audience question – we want to know“Will compliance with technical and / or business practice standards for pre-indexed library search services improve discovery?”
  • Mary: Recent Developments in Cross SectorCommunication and Collaboration (continued)KBART - http://www.uksg.org/kbart Phase 2 info - http://www.slideshare.net/BaltimoreNISO/kbart-phase-ii-the-next-step-towards-better-metadata
  • Mary: Recent Developments in Cross SectorCommunication and Collaboration (continued)The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announces the publication of a new recommended practice, Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics (IOTA): Recommendations for Link Resolver Providers (NISO RP-21-2013). These recommendations are the result of a three-year study performed by the NISO IOTA Working Group in which millions of OpenURLs were analyzed and a Completeness Index was developed as a means of quantifying OpenURL quality. By applying this Completeness Index to their OpenURL data and following the recommendations, providers of link resolvers can monitor the quality of their OpenURLs and work with content providers to improve the provided metadata—ultimately resulting in a higher success rate for end users. The project is summarized in a technical report, IOTA Working Group Summary of Activities and Outcomes (NISO TR-05-2013), which was published along with the recommended practice.“OpenURLs are context-sensitive URLs widely used by publishers and libraries to allow end users to connect to the full-text of e-resources discovered during a search,” explains Aron Wolf, Data Program Analyst with Serials Solutions and member of the IOTA Working Group. “To ensure that the user accesses the most appropriate copy of a resource (one that is preferably free to the user due to a subscription through the user’s library), the OpenURL link connects to a link resolver knowledgebase. The metadata embedded within the OpenURL is compared through the link resolver with what is held in or licensed through the library and the end user is then presented with the available full-text access options. At a typical academic library, thousands of OpenURL requests are initiated by patrons each week. The problem is that too often these links do not work as expected because the metadata in the OpenURL is incorrect or incomplete, leaving users unable to access the resources they need.”“Through our analysis, the IOTA Working Group found that there was a pattern to the failures in OpenURLs,” states Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian at Cornell University Library and Chair of the IOTA Working Group. “The Completeness Index was developed as a method of predicting the success of OpenURLs from a given provider by examining the data elements that provider includes in the OpenURLs from its site. This metric can serve as a tool to help determine which content providers are more likely to cause linking problems due to missing data elements in their OpenURLs and can identify exactly what the problems are. The Recommended Practice explains how to implement the measures so that problems can be clearly identified and steps taken with the content providers to improve the quality of the metadata.”“The IOTA Recommended Practice is a perfect complement to the NISO/UKSG KBART Recommended Practice (NISO RP-9-2010),” states Todd Carpenter, NISO’s Executive Director. “While KBART recommends how to improve the data within the link resolver knowledgebase, IOTA is focused on the metadata passed in the OpenURL itself. Together, these recommendations can ensure that OpenURLs will consistently provide the results that libraries, publishers, and end users have come to expect from this technology.”The IOTA Recommended Practice and Technical Report are both available for free download from the IOTA Working Group’s page on the NISO website at: www.niso.org/workrooms/openurlquality.
  • Mary – next audience question – we want to know“Will compliance with technical standards for library e-resource fulfillment and access improve discovery?”
  • Mary: Recent Developments in Cross SectorCommunication and Collaboration (continued)
  • Mary – next audience question – we want to know“Will new mobile solutions for access to library-supplied resources improve discovery?”
  • Lettie – At the time of the whitepaper, we had not identified a new approach to understanding the discovery experience. Growing numbers of libraries, publishers, and other knowledge orgs adopting innovative product and website design tactics that have a direct impact on discoverability. Chief among them are user-centered (or human focused) theories that turn the focus to the student, faculty, practitioner or other reader of scholarly content. For example, when redesigning a new catalog website, Library Journal’s Adam Schmidt believes traditional catalog designs are backwards and that “prioritizing the collection, not people, results in a user-hostile interaction design and a poor user experience.” He advocates for the reverse, that catalogs be designed to be “a tool that prioritizes helping people accomplish their tasks, whereby bibliographic data exists quietly in the background and is exposed only when useful.”The “Jobs to be done” approach was articulated by Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School professor, in a Sloan Management Review article (Spring 2007) … “if you understand the jobs your customers want done, you gain new market insights and create viable growth strategies”
  • Lettie – next audience question – we want to know“Do you / does your organization take a user-centered or jobs-to-be-done approach to improving discovery?”
  • Lettie – A number of new studies and initiatives presented in published literature are adopting a JTBD approach. For example… Andrew Asher at Bucknell University lead a comparative study of students at two campuses using various discovery services and search engines, how they rank performance, etc., now published in the College & Research Libs journal Also published in CRL, Cory Lown and others from the North Carolina State University libraries use 2 semesters’ worth of what they call “real world data” to explore opportunities for improvements to unified search solutions. And notable research groups – like OCLC Research and PIL – are leading the way with student-focused research that aim to inform the scholarly community of what jobs our users need to perform.
  • Dr. Somerville and I tried our hand at this approach in a study conducted last year and presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Association of College and Research Libraries, part of the American Library Assoc.Original research undertaken in advance of 2013 ACRL annual meeting.Purpose: to graphically represent typical research workflows of advanced students in the social sciences during their literature review; our goal was to depict activity beyond the walls of a single academic database or websiteMethod:we conducted interviews and observational research with 11 social science masters or PhD candidates in the US and UKFindings: we used observational data to generate a Google Analytics-like flow diagram, which I’ll show you in a moment. At the ACRL meeting next month, we will present new insights into how this type of student navigates the web and offer recommendations for cross-sector ventures by publishers, libraries and related vendors to adapt their products and services to better support this important scholarly activity.
  • And this is the resulting user pathway chart, using the Sanky program developed by Mike Bostok. The purpose of this diagram is to demonstrate dominant trends in how social science students navigate the web in search of scholarly material. For example, open-web or mainstream search activity lead participants to a wide range of resources -- from primary source materials and key research groups, as well as academic materials.
  • Lettie – There are new product and service offerings, some from big-name primary content providers, that are clearly adopting a user-centered approach. There’s a bit of a ‘publisher as service provider’ trend at hand here For purposes of this talk, the important element here is how they are focused on the research process and related tasks, adding new ‘state of the art’ tools to support their ‘jobs to be done.’ For example *cue animation* Credo Reference exposes related content in a variety of databases via topic pages; Zotero intends to be a cloud solution to traditional citation mgmt apps; ReadCube leverages linked open to enable a number of researcher needs. *cue animation* Perhaps most notable is Digital Science, just down the road here…They aim to provide software or services for each significant step within the researcher workflow
  • Lettie – You’ll be familiar with a number of these products, just recently on the market and taking off fast. Digital Science aims to develop or provide incubation for development of a workflow-oriented line portfolio of products. They took a user-focused approach and analyzed the cycle for common scientific researcher / academic, are now investing in products to support each of these areas.
  • Handover to Lettie
  • Lettie – We didn’t elaborate on structured data in the whitepaper, so we wanted to share some observations. Structured metadata is no snap to achieve for a content provider, but it is critical for the exchange of data necessary for a reader discover publications. Exposing structure – or schema – of content enables more relevant, precise search Structured data are the building blocks of today’s academic search tools *cue animation* It is for this reason that Google provides information about how to structure data to enable discovery of content as well as enhanced options like “rich snippets” – like this one *cue animation* for music by Leonard Cohen that embed links to specific songs. For scholarly structured data, moderated standards are well established Aug 2012 – JATS, formerly known at the NLM DTD, became a NISO standard. It provides 3 sets of tags today, at various levels of schema control. Mar 2013 – NISO approved recommendations for the “Presentation and identification of e-journals” or Pie-J
  • Lettie - Also, since the publication of the SAGE white paper, the concept of improving information retrieval via linked and open metadata has surged.Linked data is a term coined by Tim Berners-Lee when developing the idea of the Semantic Web, where metadata on the web is structured so that it can be interlinked and become more useful. Building on web standards like HTTP and URIs, enables data from different sources to be connected and queried.The concept that this type of interconnected metadata should also be open has grown in popularity over these last few years and is being leveraged by content providers of scholarly publications. The idea is not unlike open source movements in software development – “standing on the shoulders of giants,” the basic premise being that we must build upon existing routines and standards to progress knowledge and elevate our work. The same is true about published research data – and there are options for content providers to participate in the semantic web of linked open data without giving away core assets.Oppys and risks…
  • Lettie – next audience question – we want to know“Will compliance with further standards for structured and linked open metadata improve discovery?”
  • Lettie – new cross-sector developments found in new events and collaborative opportunities…1. For example, linked open data was a key theme of the 2013 Discovery summit, held just last month in London.Jisc and the British Library jointly hosted a meeting “to share ideas and approaches to resource discovery in teaching and learning to uncover commonalities and new lessons. The aim of the meeting is to assess if we can collaborate on addressing the common technical, political and social challenges that are preventing us realizing our grand visions for better resource discovery.” Outcome was a list of priority actions to improve scholarly resource discovery – two of which are directly aligned with the SAGE whitepaper: “Initiative to aggregate and distribute skills, knowledge and expertise across the sector - librarians, curators, archivists and developers;” and “Engage and understand end users (and how they add value).”2. Also related are Jisc-funded events like the one co-hosted with SCONUL (UK-based coalition of state colleges and universities) last spring: the Discovery Business Care & Landscape Workshop aimed “to establish the appetite for a new generation of highly flexible services based on the possibilities of open data and cost-effective aggregation, not limited by traditional boundaries between libraries, archives, museums and repositories and potentially extending to domains such as teaching and learning resources and research data.”3. And initiatives like the Discovery Project, which states: “Discovery is not about finding a single solution, platform or infrastructure for aggregating and serving metadata. Instead we are striving to create the conditions that embrace different approaches to aggregating data, reduce technical and licensing barriers, and enable the creation of value-added services.”4. *cue animation* Another example of cross-sector collaboration to ensure discoverability: ALPSP hosting expert from Google Scholar to advise content providers how to avoid indexing problems when a journal moves from one publisher to another.
  • Lettie – next audience question – we want to know“Are we doing enough boundary crossing to improve discovery?” -- time permitting, return to this after?
  • Isko discoverability presentation by lettie conrad and mary somerville july 2013

    1. 1. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Scholarly ecosystem collaboration potentialities: a SAGE white paper update ISKO UK Biennial Conference Knowledge Organization – Pushing the Boundaries July 8, 2013 Mary M. Somerville, MLS, MA, PhD University of Colorado Denver, USA Lettie Y. Conrad, MA SAGE Publications
    2. 2. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC ● SAGE discoverability white paper ● Boundary-crossing discovery initiatives • Web-scale discovery in libraries • Research workflow and the “jobs to be done” • Search quality essentials ● Discussion Session Outline
    3. 3. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Source: Somerville, M. M., Schader, B. J., and Sack, J. R. Improving Discoverability of Scholarly Content in the Twenty-First Century: Collaboration Opportunities for Librarians, Publishers, and Vendors. A White Paper commissioned by SAGE. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2012. http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/librarian/DiscoverabilityWhitePaper/ SAGE Discoverability White Paper ● Best practices for access and discovery of content in libraries ● Big problems that publishers, vendors, and libraries need to solve ● Real solutions that librarians and publishers can implement ● Further observations for improving discoverability and visibility
    4. 4. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Symbiotic (but disrupted and fragmented) Scholarly Ecosystem In the symbiotic (but fragmented and disrupted) scholarly ecosystem: ● Librarians manage systems for institutional collection, dissemination, and retrieval of scholarly corpus ● Publishers produce and promote authors’ work through indexing formats findable on the open web and in library catalogs ● Publishers’ technology vendors supply e-pub platforms and strategic SEO advice ● Libraries’ technology vendors connect publishers’ digital content to OPACs through ERMs and web-scale discovery services Photo credit: Globe<http://www.flickr.com/photos/mirkogarufi/514406103/> by _fLeMmA_
    5. 5. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Conversation Starters “…to improve discoverability and visibility, access and discovery, and usage and creation of the scholarly corpus:” ● Establish common standards for structured metadata, information organization, resource presentation, and usage statistics ● Explore and implement cross-platform and cross-publisher industry best practices and shared standards ● Create online product interfaces and publisher website designs that conform to (yet to be determined) standards and functionalities ● Monitor (changing) researcher behaviors and apply findings to publisher and library educational tools and system and interface redesigns
    6. 6. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC ● Open URL (link resolver) navigation technology that shows options for obtaining target content and shows „best‟ version of scholarly content for which users have „rights‟ through academic affiliation validated by institutional authentication (National Information Standards Organization/NISO and Knowledge Bases and Related Tools/KBART). ● Open Researcher and Contributor ID/ORCID assigns unique identifiers to associate researches and entities with research outputs, identifies version of record and most recent or authoritative version of given work through its life publication cycle (NISO has also recommended standard version terms and CrossRef has released a new feature for version validation, CrossMark). ● Scholarly Article offers structured data schema to enable improved discovery of appropriate content through consideration of a variety of unique properties, including publisher, editor, reviewer, genre, reviews, ratings, institution, location, creation date, and modification date, as well as author, title, and source – all value added signifiers of provenance and authority. Collaboration -- technologies, standards, and practices
    7. 7. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC WEB-SCALE DISCOVERY IN LIBRARIES Boundary-crossing discovery initiatives
    8. 8. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Web-scale discovery in libraries • “set of practices for the ways that content is represented in discovery services and for the interactions between the creators of these services and the information providers whose resources they represent” • ODI survey: intellectual property concerns from A&I database providers NISO Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) • standards and/or best practices for pre-indexed library discovery services
    9. 9. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC “…discovery services have the potential to provide ease of information discovery, access, and use, benefitting not only its member organizations, but also the global community of information seekers. However, the relative newness of these services has generated questions and concerns among information providers and librarians as to how these services meet expectations with regard to issues related to traditional search and retrieval services…this document has been developed to assist those who choose to use this new distribution channel through the provision of guidelines that will help avoid the disruption of the delicate balance of interests involved.” (released to NISO, Feb 1, 2012) National Federation of Advanced Information Service (NFAIS) Discovery Service Code of Practice Draft
    10. 10. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Will compliance with technical and / or business practice standards for pre- indexed library search services improve discovery?
    11. 11. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Knowledge Bases And Related Tools working group ● NISO / UKSG initiative “exploring data problems within the OpenURL supply chain”, launched 2008 ● Phase II recommendations published 2012
    12. 12. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC NISO IOTA project Recommendations for Link Resolver Providers ● Context-sensitive URLs widely used ● Detect OpenURL errors via analytics ● Complement to the KBART
    13. 13. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Will compliance with technical standards for library e-resource fulfillment and access improve discovery?
    14. 14. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Mobile discovery ● Apps for library discovery tools and databases ● “Vouchers” for off- campus reading ● COUNTER 4 includes mobile usage standards
    15. 15. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Will new mobile solutions for access to library-supplied resources improve discovery?
    16. 16. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC RESEARCH WORKFLOWS AND “JOBS TO BE DONE” Boundary-crossing discovery initiatives
    17. 17. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Understanding the Discovery Experience ● User-centered design tactics ● Adam Schmidt, Library Journal http://lj.libraryjournal.com/author/aschmidt/ ● Jobs To Be Done (JTBD)
    18. 18. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Do you / does your organization take a user-centered or jobs to be done approach to improving discovery?
    19. 19. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Discovery studies in the literature ● Paths of Discovery, Asher, et al. ● How users search the library from a single search box, Lown, et al. Both found at http://crl.acrl.org/ ● Blazing New Paths, Conrad and Somerville
    20. 20. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC “Blazing New Paths: Charting Advanced Researcher Patterns” ● Purpose: graphic for social science scholar workflow ● Methods: observation, interview, data analysis ● Findings: new insights into web navigation patterns and recommendations
    21. 21. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Mike Bostok, “Sanky Diagrams from Excel,” accessed on February 9, 2013: http://ramblings.mcpher.com/Home/excelquirks/d3/sankey.
    22. 22. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC New JTBD Products ● Publisher as service provider ● Workflow tools leverage state-of-the-art
    23. 23. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
    24. 24. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC SEARCH QUALITY ESSENTIALS Boundary-crossing discovery initiatives
    25. 25. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Structured data ● SEO – mainstream and academic ● Data standards z
    26. 26. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Linked Data / Open Data
    27. 27. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Will compliance with further standards for linked open metadata improve discovery?
    28. 28. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Recent Developments in Cross Sector Communication and Collaboration ● JISC / BL: Discovery Summit 2013 ● SCONUL Discovery Business Case & Landscape Workshops (Spring 2012) ● The Discovery Project
    29. 29. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC Question for you! Are we doing enough boundary crossing to improve discovery?
    30. 30. Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC For more information… ● ACRL 2013 Conference: Conrad, L. Y., & Somerville, M. M. (2013). Blazing new paths: Charting advanced researcher patterns. Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries Conference (ACRL 2013), Indianapolis, Indiana, in press. ● Somerville, M. M., Schader, B. J., & Sack, J. R. (2012). Improving the discoverability of scholarly content in the Twenty-First Century: Collaboration opportunities for librarians, publishers, and vendors. White Paper commissioned by SAGE. Available: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/librarian/Discoverabili tyWhitePaper/ ● Somerville, M. M., & Conrad, L. Y. (2013). Discoverability challenges and collaboration opportunities within the scholarly communications ecosystem: A SAGE white paper update. Collaborative Librarianship, 5(2, Spring), in press. http://www.collaborativelibrarianship.org/

    ×