IOTA is an initiative that analyzes OpenURL links to improve their quality and success in resolving to the correct resource. It evaluates elements like journal title, ISSN, and DOI in OpenURLs to determine their relative importance. IOTA creates reports comparing OpenURL quality across providers and assigns element weightings based on failure rates. While a completeness index provides useful information, element importance depends on the specific link resolver and target used. IOTA's goal is to improve OpenURL linking through a data-driven, community-based approach.

1. Evaluating the Quality of
OpenURLs Through Analytics
Texas Library Association
Annual Conference
Houston, TX
April 19, 2012
Rafal Kasprowski, Rice University

2. What is IOTA?
• Initiative that measures the relative importance of the
elements that make up OpenURL links to help vendors
improve their OpenURL strings so that the maximum
number of OpenURL requests resolve to a correct record.
Elements:
• journal title book title ISBN
• ISSN start page DOI
• volume author PMID
• issue date …

3. Agenda
• In the Beginning: Proprietary linking and advent of OpenURL
• From Cornell to NISO: IOTA created in response to OpenURL
linking problems
• IOTA’s analytical approach
• Community-derived reports comparing OpenURLs
• Element weighting
• Concept of the OpenURL Quality Index
• Environment-specific applications of Quality Index
• Avenues for further research

4. Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking
• Certain A&I database providers (e.g., CSA, PubMed)
offered full-text linking options for a select number of
content providers.
• Libraries manually activated full-text linking with
providers they had subscriptions with.
• A&I --> Full Text

5. Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons
• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for
each full-text provider.
• A&I providers offering this option were few.
• Selection of full-text providers was limited.
But...
• Once set up, the static links to full texts were
accurate.
• Problem source pinpointed easily: A&I --> Full Text

6. Advent of OpenURL
• Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos.
• Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request.
• A-Z list (e.g., e-journal, e-books):
o Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings.
o Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking.
o Indicates provider of "appropriate copy"
• A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")

7. OpenURL: syntax, resolver, linking nodes
Source Citation
A, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objects
for the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44
(November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed
October 24, 2010).
Target Link (example using OpenURL syntax, similar to Source OpenURL)
http://www.anytarget.com/?issn=0957-4484&volume=21&issue=44&date=20101105
&spage=445201&title=Nanotechnology&atitle=A+versatile+nanotechnology+to+
connect+individual+nano-objects+for+the+ fabrication+of+hybrid+single-
electron+devices.&aulast=A++Bernand

8. Example of Resolver Menu Page
Matthew Reidsma, “jQuery for Customizing Hosted Library Services", http://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/11 (accessed April 19, 2012)

9. Pros & Cons of OpenURL
Pros:
• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup:
Less work for libraries and providers.
• Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers
exceeded proprietary linking: OpenURL scales better.
Cons:
• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: more
difficult to pinpoint cause of link failures.
• OpenURL linking not improved significantly in last 10
years.
• No systematic method exists to benchmark OpenURLs.

10. Identifying source of problem…
"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or
strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers
is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs
by databases (for example, A&I products)."
Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for
UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.
Defining methodology for approaching problem
Recently, researchers have indicated the need for metadata
quality metrics, including:
• completeness;
• accuracy;
• conformance to expectations;
• logical consistency and coherence.
Bruce, Thomas R. and Hillmann, Diane I. 2004. The Continuum of Metadata Quality:
Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice. Ed. Diane I. Hillmann and Elaine L.
Westbrooks. Chicago: American Library Association, pp. 238-256.

11. Année philologique OpenURL Study
2008 Cornell study led by Adam Chandler*
• Problem: Too often links sent from Aph did not
successfully resolve to requested resource.
• Objective: Examine quality of OpenURLs offered to
users by Aph in order to improve the linking.
Aph Study investigated:
• Faulty citation metadata from source database.
• Method to evaluate the OpenURLs.
*Chandler, Adam. 2009. Results of L’Année philologique online OpenURL Quality Investigation: Mellon
Planning Grant Final Report.
http://metadata.library.cornell.edu/oq/files/200902%20lannee-mellonreport-openurlquality-final.pdf.

12. Scoring System & Aph Study Outcomes
Concept of scoring in Aph study (based on B. Hughes study)*
• establish a baseline for comparison;
• results to be shared with data providers;
• develop a best practice.
Problem analysis in Aph study limited to:
• source link
• presence/absence of citation metadata elements
Results:
• OpenURL quality model: compares elements in Aph
OpenURLs to those of other providers.
• No scoring was achieved for Aph, but model is first step
towards scoring system.
*Hughes, Baden. 2004. Metadata Quality Evaluation: Experience from the Open Language Archives
Community. In Digital Libraries: International Collaboration and Cross-Fertilization. Ed. Zhaoneng
Chen et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 320-329.

13. Creation of IOTA
IOTA is formed in
January 2010
• when NISO accepts
proposal to take
Aph Study to wider
community.

14. IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups
IOTA
• Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking;
• Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by:
– OpenURL providers.
KBART
• “Knowledge Bases And Related Tools”
• Deals with data issues at the KB level
• Seeks improvements in data exchange practices between:
– content providers (e.g. OpenURL providers);
– product vendors (e.g. link resolver vendors).
– subscription agents;

15. IOTA & KBART: related through OpenURL
• IOTA:
– analyzing data sent from OpenURL source to link resolver.
• KBART:
– creating formatting best practices for data sent from content
providers to knowledge base (and link resolver) vendors.

16. IOTA’s Basic Assumptions
• Results are achieved through an analytical investigation
of how OpenURL links work.
• Practical: Not the OpenURL standard is addressed, but
links (OpenURLs) generated by standard.
• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant
improvement in linking success rate.
o Motto: "small changes. big improvements"

17. IOTA’s Desired Outcomes:
…a continuation of Aph Study
• Produce qualitative reports that will help OpenURL
providers quickly compare their OpenURL quality to that of
their peers.
• Develop community-recognized index for measuring the
quality of OpenURL links generated by content providers.
• Method:
o fair;
o transparent;
o scalable across all OpenURLs and their providers.

18. How is comparing OpenURLs useful?
• Content providers that generate OpenURLs can:
– compare their OpenURLs with other providers;
– make improvements to their OpenURLs.
• Institutions can:
– compare OpenURL providers;
– make local adjustments to OpenURL setup.
• Resolver vendors can:
– compare OpenURL providers;
– Change their settings for OpenURL providers:
• Link resolvers;
• Web-scale discovery products.

19. OpenURL Reports

20. Report Filters

21. All elements used by a vendor (source report)

22. All vendors using an element (metric report)

23. Reports for OpenURL data contributors

24. All databases from a contributor
with specific metric

25. OpenURL Quality Index:
Rating vendors by their OpenURLs
1. Core elements:
• Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting system;
• 23M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content providers.
2. Scoring system based on assumption:
• Correlation exists between
o # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") &
o ability of OpenURLs to link to specific content.
3. Weighting assigned to core elements:
• Based on relative importance
o spage vs atitle
o issn vs jtitle
o doi/pmid vs date, etc.

26. OpenURL Quality Index
preliminary 2010 version, for all OpenURL types

27. Preliminary Vendor Completeness Report
limited to article type OpenURLs

28. Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more
systematic way:
o Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data
(issn, volume, spage, etc.)
o Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs spage, etc.)
• IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only.
How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?
o knowledge base,
o resolver,
o full-text provider (target).
• High "completeness" score of OpenURLs not always
indicative of "success" in linking to full texts
o Combination of indexes, incl. “success index”, developed by
IOTA and/or other groups may lead to more precise metrics.

29. Weighting by Stepwise Regression
• Systematic approach used for weighting (suggested by Phil Davis).
• Preliminary test on a set of OpenURLs that resolved with the EBSCO
and SerialsSolutions link resolvers.
• Removed a single element and checked failure percentage w/o that
element. Repeated procedure for all elements.
• Elements with greater impact on link failure had higher weighting.
Preliminary results from a set of 1,500 OpenURLs:
atitle aulast date issn issue spage title volume
2.64 0.07 1.08 84.71 28.08 38.57 0 77.6
• With weights based on the failure rates, the correlation coefficient
between the provider level completeness index and the average
OpenURL success for that provider was a strong .80

30. Effect of Link Resolver on Failure Rate
• Resolvers can be more or less “forgiving”.
– E.g. if a link is built on ISSN, volume, issue, and start
page, if ANY element is missing, then link is set to NOT
SHOW on resolver menu page.
– Note: Different resolver vendors and libraries may use
other settings.
• Different configurations  different failure rates 
different weightings
– Concept of “standard weights” and “single completeness
index per provider” is not realistic.

31. It’s about the process
• Completeness logic not disproved:
– Environment-specific element weights and
corresponding completeness index still possible
– If limited to
• (a) particular resolver &
• (b) specific linking permissions

32. Other Take-Aways
Several factors involved in perceived “link failure”:
1. Bad or missing metadata in the OpenURL link.
2. Inaccurate holdings data within the resolver’s knowledge base
3. Flexibility of syntax to the target
- e.g., target supports at least two: OpenURL syntax, DOI link, proprietary link structure.
4. Flexibility of resolution logic at the target
- i.e., target finds way to create link using available data when some data missing or wrong.
5. User expectations
- e. g., link resolver provided link to OPAC or ILL form, but user was expecting full text.
- IOTA focused on (1)
- KBART working on (2)
- User education could address (4)
- Displaying OpenURL button only if full text available could address (5)

33. Questions?
• http://openurlquality.niso.org
• http://www.niso.org/workrooms/openurlquality
Rafal Kasprowski
Electronic Resources Librarian
Rice University
Fondren Library MS 44
Houston, TX 77005
rk11@rice.edu
http://www.slideshare.net/rkaspro