Downloaded 46 times
Uploaded bySherrard Ewing
Link Resolvers, Knowledgebases and the KBART Working Group
The document focuses on improving the accuracy of electronic resource holdings information in knowledgebases, which is crucial for the efficacy of openURL link resolvers. It outlines the need for standardized metadata formats and procedures among publishers, libraries, and knowledgebase vendors to ensure better access to resources for users. The document also details current phases of the initiative, including stakeholder involvement and best practices for updating and sharing holdings data.
More Related Content
Similar to Link Resolvers, Knowledgebases and the KBART Working Group
Link Resolvers, Knowledgebases and the KBART Working Group
- 1. Sherrard Ewing Provider Relations Analyst SerialsSolutions Chad Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian University of Wyoming Libraries November 5th, 2010 30th Annual Charleston Conference
- 2. Knowledgebase: Holdings informationused by an OpenURL link resolver OpenURL Link resolver matches against knowledgebase to determine availability of electronic full text
- 3. The supply chainof metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases
- 4. If the holdingsinformation in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver efficacy and librarian’s decision making- process.
- 5. If the holdingsinformation in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver efficacy and librarian’s decision making- process. In order to expect consistent metadata delivery from content providers, the requirements need to be consistent as well.
- 6. ◦ Who –Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries ◦ What – a universally acceptable holdings data format to improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain ◦ Where – throughout the supply chain & at the UKSG info hub http://www.uksg.org/kbart ◦ When – Now Phase 1 Report – Jan 2010 http://bit.ly/kbartRP Endorsement Phase – Began June 2010 Phase 2 in Development ◦ Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings data ◦ How can you help? Librarians Publishers
- 7. Standards organizations ◦UKSG and NISO Working group members (stakeholders): ◦ Knowledgebase vendors ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO ◦ Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators) ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing ◦ Subscription Agents ◦ Libraries & Consortia Full list -- http://www.uksg.org/kbart/members
- 8. KnowledgeBases AndRelated Tools A NISO recommended practice A universally acceptable holdings list format Tab-delimited text files Delivered via HTTP or FTP Guidelines for fields and values A single format for sharing holdings data across the scholarly content supply chain Hosted by providers Discoverable on the registry
- 10. First publisherKBART adopter ◦ http://librarians.scitation.org/librarians/help_file s.jsp
- 11.
- 12.
- 13. Culling, James.“Link Resolvers and the Metadata Supply Chain” Inconsistent holding list metadata format ◦ Embargo period format Example relative vs. absolute embargo? ◦ Date/enumeration formats MM-DD-YYYY? / DD-MM-YYYY? Inconsistent metadata update procedures (See next slide)
- 14. Proactive reconciliation ofan ejournal package list ◦ Request title list with detailed holdings info from publisher (repeatedly, naggingly) ◦ Compare with that of your subscription agent and KB vendor ◦ Now that you have 3 (or more) different title lists, translation phase includes dealing with: Number of titles and titles themselves ISSN mis-matches Title changes, mergers, acquisitions, new starts, and losses Publisher-reuse of ISSNs/title combinations Reconciling date discrepancies manually (and inconsistent/unlcear formats) ◦ Go live ◦ Lather, rinse, repeat!
- 15. Similar to thelibrary’s process Need to contact providers again and again Invest a lot of time correcting data problems ◦ Investigating end-user queries and complaints Update procedures vary by provider If unable to get data from provider, may resort less preferable acquisition methods (web site inspection) ◦ Last resort, not preferred
- 17. An end toour role as translators ◦ What would you rather spend your time on? ◦ Libraries ◦ KB vendors
- 18. * 4 collectionscurrently * Phase 1 Successes ◦ 4 content providers currently supplying KBART P1 metadata ◦ More in the works Phase 2 Progress
- 19. 1. Review therequirement: http://www.uksg.org/kbart/ 2. Format your title lists accordingly. 3. Self check to ensure they conform to the recommended practice 4. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data updates 5. Register your organization on the KBART registry website: http://bit.ly/kbartregistry
- 20. ◦ READ andINFORM yourself! “Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain” “KBART Phase 1.0 Summary of Recommendations” Uksg.org/kbart ◦ LEARN about what KBART is and what it does ◦ ENABLE publisher sales staff to make the case to their company and point them to the KBART Registry ◦ FOLLOW UP with continued requests as necessary
- 21. Lobby publishersto adopt the KBART practices ◦ Promote the importance of KBART… When vendor and publisher reps visit With your consortial managers ◦ INSIST on ‘knowing’ what you are buying! Require delivery of a usable holdings list in your licenses before you pay Initially & annually going forward When the list is inadequate, point them to KBART Only your insistence will make it happen
- 22. Phase 1 –Universally accepted standardized publisher metadata, regularly distributed AND available on demand Phase 2 – Broad adoption, Consortia, More content type coverage (eBooks, conference proceedings) Phase 3? – Even more content types, automated delivery, institutional metadata????
- 23. Sherrard Ewing Provider RelationsAnalyst Serials Solutions sherrard.ewing@serialssolutions.com Chad Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian University of Wyoming Libraries chutchen@uwyo.edu Visit the Information Hub: http://www.uksg.org/kbart/hub Questions?