OCLC Research update: Emerging trends.
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•37 views
Connaway, L. S., Gutsche, B., & Smith-Yoshimura, K. (2019). OCLC Research update: Emerging trends. Panel presented at ALA Midwinter, January 28, 2019, Seattle, Washington.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to OCLC Research update: Emerging trends.
Similar to OCLC Research update: Emerging trends. (20)
More from Lynn Connaway
More from Lynn Connaway (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
OCLC Research update: Emerging trends.
- 1. January 25–29, 2019 #ALAMW19 OCLC Research Update: Emerging Trends Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhD Moderator
- 2. Director of Library Trends and User Research connawayl@oclc.org @LynnConnaway Lynn Silipigni Connaway
- 3. #ALAMW19 EVOLVING SCHOLARLY RECORD – Research Data Management – Research Information Management
- 4. #ALAMW19 Robust Research Agenda: Evolving Scholarly Record Ixchel M. Faniel Senior Research Scientist Brian Lavoie Senior Research Scientist Rebecca Bryant Senior Program Officer Chris Cyr Associate Research Scientist
- 5. #ALAMW19 The Evolving Scholarly Record: Identify patterns & trends The Realities of RDM: Document practical experiences & implications • Realities of RDM Webinar Series Recordings publicly available • RLP RDM Interest Group ~80 members ~50 institutions 9 countries From the Evolving Scholarly Record to the Realities of RDM RDM Learning Curriculum: Facilitate learning & engagement oc.lc/esr oc.lc/rdm
- 6. #ALAMW19 What’s coming in RDM “Context from the Data Reuser’s Point of View” Ixchel M. Faniel, Rebecca D. Frank, Elizabeth Yakel Accepted for publication in Journal of Documentation Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/adewale_oshineye/8711400023 by Ade Oshineye / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
- 7. #ALAMW19 What’s coming in RDM 1. What metadata elements exist in data deposit documentation and how consistently are they applied across repositories within a discipline? 2. How similar are data deposit requirements between disciplines? Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/136450582@N04/41345523395 by Garry Davies / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
- 8. oc.lc/rim OCLC Research publications on Research Information Management
- 9. oc.lc/rim The aggregation, curation, and utilization of metadata about research activities Overlapping terms: • CRIS (Current Research Information System) • RNS (Research Networking System) • RPS (Research Profiling System) • FAR (Faculty Activity Reporting) **But it is different from Research Data Management (RDM) . . . In other words, RIM systems are used to collect the scholarly output of an institution, and allow it to be combined with other information collected on campus.
- 10. oc.lc/rim
- 11. #ALAMW19 IMPACT AND USE OF OA & OPEN CONTENT IN LIBRARIES
- 12. #ALAMW19 Framing the Open Content discussion Scope • Very broad scope of the topic: the full range of freely available, unrestricted, online content • Very broad scope of the target goup: all types and sizes of libraries from across the globe.
- 14. #ALAMW19 Help us promote the survey! If you haven’t taken the survey, please do so at oc.lc/oasurvey Survey closes on 31 January
- 16. #ALAMW19 Researching Students’ Information Choices (RSIC): Determining Identity and Judging Credibility in Digital Spaces • 4-year IMLS funded National Leadership Grant #LG-81-15-0155 • Research questions: • Do STEM students differentiate among different types of digital resources at point of selection? • How do STEM students determine the credibility of digital resources? http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/RSIC Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joiseyshowaa/2095469768/ by joiseyshowaa / CC BY-SA 2.0
- 17. #ALAMW19 Container collapse (#containercollapse) • Visual context and cues that print containers provide used to help individuals identify a document’s origins and measure its value • Cues are obscured or more difficult to discern • “In digital format, a document is decanted from its original container and must be carefully examined to determine the journey it took to reach the individual.” http://www.oclc.org/blog/main/what-is-container-collapse-and-why- should-librarians-and-teachers-care/ Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/panchenks/28145846255 by Panchenks / CC BY-NC 2.0
- 20. #ALAMW19 Implications • Distinctions between containers blur online • Old rules for determining identity no longer serve • Difficult to tell fake news from principled journalism • Need to find new ways to enable students to • Identify resources • Evaluate the value of their information Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31246066@N04/4648505447 / by Ian Sane / CC BY 2.0
- 21. #ALAMW19 DISCOVERY AND ACCESS: – How do academic library users navigate the path from discovery to access?
- 22. #ALAMW19 39% 54% 20% 19% 30% 16% 5% 6% 2% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Last requests (n=274,346 requests) All click events (n=1,961,168 events) All Click Events vs. Last Requests by Type of Request All Academics Search results Physical access option Online access attempt Click events
- 23. #ALAMW19 5.01 5.81 4.99 4.34 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 Average Session Length in Minutes by Type of Academic User 2.16 2.47 2.17 1.67 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Average Number of Searches per Session by Type of Academic User 5.06 4.83 5.07 5.41 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 Average Number of Words per Search by Type of Academic User User type and search statistics
- 24. #ALAMW19 84% 57% 43% 11% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Sessions with each Request Type: All Academics (n=282,307 sessions) 85% 56% 42% 11% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Sessions with each Request Type: Academic 4-year (n=240,960 sessions) 89% 55% 43% 16% 4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Sessions with each Request Type: Community College (n=23,444 sessions) 69%71% 48% 8% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Sessions with each Request Type: ARL (n=19,083 sessions) User type and access
- 25. #ALAMW19 Decision- making factors Search strategies Item formats Evaluation of resources Liked or desired features Feelings of frustration and delight Influence of librarian Privacy concerns Interview coding themes
- 26. #ALAMW19 Implications • Librarians and library instructions enhance search experience • Searches can be frustrating when users see too many results • Convenience is a key factor in choosing online resources Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/atomictaco/4230244738/ by Atomic Taco / CC BY-SA 2.0
- 27. #ALAMW19 PUBLIC LIBRARIES – Visitors and Residents – Public Libraries Respond to Opioid Crisis
- 28. #ALAMW19 (White and Le Cornu 2011) #vandr Visitors and Residents resources http://goo.gl/vxUMRD V&R Framework
- 29. #ALAMW19 Worthington Public Library • Infrequent user semi-structured individual interviews – Why choose library for information? – Areas of surprise, delight, frustration with library offerings – What life-changing events anticipated in next year? • How can library help with these changes? – Comparison with non-library activities Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomcollinsphoto/19008741635/ by Tom Collins/ CC BY-ND 2.0
- 30. #ALAMW19 Number of respondents that did activity in past week (n=1556) Most popular library activities
- 31. #ALAMW19 Number of respondents that did activity in past week (n=1556) Most popular non-library activities
- 32. #ALAMW19 Chance that respondent shopped for books, movies, or video games in the past week
- 33. #ALAMW19 Implications • Libraries and other online services complementary • Checking out physical items remains a vital library service • Many library users like to put down roots within the library physical space
- 34. #ALAMW19 Public Libraries Respond to the Opioid Crisis with their Communities Goal: Expand the capacity of public libraries to support their communities during the opioid crisis by producing and disseminating information that libraries and their community partners can use to develop collaborative strategies.
- 35. #ALAMW19 Project details and activities • Funded by IMLS (LG-00-18-0298-18), with cost-share from PLA and OCLC • 16-month project (September 2018 – December 2019) • Key activities – Case study research in eight public libraries (Sept 2018 – June 2019) – Cross-sector discussions via webinar (April – June 2019) – Call-to-action white paper (July – Oct 2019) – Dissemination to the field, including public webinars (Nov – Dec 2019)
- 36. #ALAMW19 More information • Project website: oc.lc/opioid-crisis • Contact Kendra Morgan with questions morgank@oclc.org
- 37. January 25–29, 2019 #ALAMW19 Connect. Think. Design. Streamlined Design Thinking for Active Learning Spaces Betha Gutsche, WebJunction Programs Manager
- 38. #ALAMW19 Design Thinking is a process of discovery and experimentation • Discover what our communities want • Experiment to create services and programs to meet changing needs
- 39. #ALAMW19 DESIGN THINKING to CREATE SMART SPACES in SMALL LIBRARIES
- 40. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction How might we work with our community to co-design a space in (or around) the library where community members engage in participatory, active learning and strengthen social connections?
- 41. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction participatory, informal, interest-driven and relevant to real life Everyone can participate. Learning happens by doing. Challenge is constant. Everything is interconnected. Active learning in libraries is…
- 42. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction Learning is interconnected. Learning is social. DIY becomes DIT (do it together) Learning happens by doing. Challenge is constant. ACTIVE LEARNING IN LIBRARIES Photos, clockwise: STEM program at Wilton (NH) Public Library; Build a City by CSM (CA) Libraries on Flickr, CC BY 2.0; Digital Media Lab, Laurel (DE) Public Library, by Tameca Beckett; You can make it by Fabrice Florin on Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0
- 43. #ALAMW19 CONNECT with COMMUNITY
- 44. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunctionCOMMUNITY DISOVERY THE COMMUNITY IS THE EXPERT Surveying Community Members by Car Martin on Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0 It all begins …and continues with community
- 45. #ALAMW19 Community Speaks; Board Listens Two questions: • What do we (your library) do really well? • What would you do to build a better library? The Hall-Voyer Foundation Board turned community input into a wall of ideas. The Board decided to: • Change the name to Honey Grove Library and Learning Center • Write a new mission statement • Create a new logo and new website • Start a capital campaign, with an initial goal of $300K $649,000 raised by Dec 31!!!
- 46. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction “Involving my board in these discussions gave them a whole new insight into what I had been trying to convey to them ‐ hearing it from the people directly made a huge difference!”
- 47. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction “Before this project started, I was sure of what my community needed. After going through the steps of the community discovery, I was able to find some things out about my community that I didn't know before. Those discoveries led us to create a space that would be better used by the community than my original idea.”
- 49. Communityinput Readyto prototype Select 3-4 items from community input to explore further Expand the possibilities of those items through brainstorming Narrow choices (dot voting) to top 2-3 ideas Evaluate these ideas and pick one to prototype Ideation
- 50. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction “Although I initially thought the ideation process was out of order, it was more of a ‘getting out of our comfort zones’ exercise that turned out to be really beneficial. I plan to use it with future projects.”
- 51. #ALAMW19 DESIGN PROTOTYPE and BUILD
- 52. #ALAMW19 Make It Tangible At Town Creek Public Library, Alabama, the director’s daughter used her origami skills and elicited excitement with her colorful plan. Patrons at Ronan District Library, Montana, participated in crafting prototypes and placed a reader right into the shelves. The sleekest of a series of prototypes that Ignacio Community Library, Colorado, used to get patron feedback on layout and colors.
- 53. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction “I was a little hesitant about this exercise. However, I really really enjoyed this process. I completed my prototype in one sitting and had a blast doing it. I've showed it to several people who have been so happy to actually physically see the plan that's been floating around in my head.”
- 54. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction Before the new space began to take shape, a group of teens took the initiative to produce a fabulous Harry Potter Party. They designed and planned all the details, including the entry to 9¾ through a brick wall. Party participants avidly pursue the Hunt for Horcruxes scavenger hunt. Teens fabricated Little Snitches as prizes for the games. Teens Stage a Harry Potter Party ACTION PROTOTYPING Their success with organizing the Harry Potter Party was resounding evidence that this teen group is ready to own and enjoy their new space and take the lead in creating programming.
- 55. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction A carpet layer made a three-hour round-trip on a Sunday (his one day off) to install the carpet because “… libraries have been good to me in my life.” Electrician Andy installed the lights, hung and wired the monitor, and ran data and electrical hook-ups to the “plug-in” seating. Designer Jaymee tries out colors and carpet samples as the old furnishings get packed up and moved out. Two talented sisters were inspired to paint a mural of swooshes to bring the dark blue wall to life. Let the Community Build It
- 56. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunctionTRANSFORMED The Finished Space – Ready for Action “The community really made the space come alive. They fanned the flames. Now they have ownership.” Mary Lou Carolan
- 57. Small Libraries Create Smart Spaces / WebJunction Transformation Stories & Videos: oc.lc/smartspaces Making Space for Active Learning (self-paced course) oc.lc/makingspace How might you apply design thinking strategies to a problem or challenge in your library?
- 58. January 28, 2019 #ALAMW19 OCLC Research & Linked Data Karen Smith-Yoshimura Senior Program Officer
- 59. #ALAMW19 Three Linked Data Initiatives • International Linked Data Survey for Implementers • International Image Interoperability Framework™ (IIIF) • “Project Passage”: Linked Data Wikibase Prototype
- 60. #ALAMW19 International Linked Data Surveys for Implementers 2014 2015 2018
- 61. Geographic breakdown of 143 responding institutions 23 countries represented 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 USA Spain UK The Netherlands Canada Germany Norway Australia Italy France Switzerland Ireland Singapore Sweden Austria China Czech Republic Finland Hungary Japan Luxembourg Malaysia Portugal
- 62. #ALAMW19 Responding institutions by type 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Research library National library Research institution Library Network Government Service provider Public Library Museum Other 2014 2015 2018
- 63. #ALAMW19 2018 2015 Not yet in production 26 37 Less than one year 14 19 More than one year, less than two years 15 10 More than two years 18 46 More than four years 31 How long linked data project or service in production Total 104 112
- 64. RDF vocabularies/ontologies used 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Schema.org SKOS Dublin Core Terms FOAF DCMI Metadata Terms RDF Schema BibFrame Local vocabulary 2015 2018
- 65. #ALAMW19 Linked Data sources consumed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% id.loc.gov* VIAF* Dbpedia GeoNames Wikidata WorldCat.org* Getty Vocabularies FAST* ISNI Resources we convert… 2015 2018
- 66. #ALAMW19 OCLC RESEARCH AND IIIF http://iiif.io/
- 67. #ALAMW19 The IIIF Consortium and Standard http://iiif.io/ • OCLC one of 55 IIIF Consortium members • IIIF standard has 4 APIs: - Image - Presentation - Search - Authentication + Discovery in development
- 68. #ALAMW19 OCLC Research and IIIF • Developed functional prototype of IIIF Presentation API • Collaborated with OCLC Product staff to incorporate into CONTENTdm • Now prototyping IIIF Discovery API • Collaborate with OCLC Product & CONTENTdm Users’ Group to prototype & test IIIF integration
- 69. #ALAMW19 CONTENTdm: OCLC’s first productionized, supported and used linked data service supporting Image and Presentation APIs (45 million manifests) From prototype to production: “Productionalized” linked data IIIF Presentation API using the Mirador Viewer.
- 70. #ALAMW19 Indexing IIIF data for discovery
- 72. #ALAMW19 • Ran from December 2017 through September 2018 • 16 OCLC Member libraries participated • The objective was to evaluate a framework for reconciling, creating, and managing bibliographic and authority data as linked data entities and relationships • The pilot Wikibase instance included 1.2M entities, mostly data representing overlaps between Wikidata, VIAF, and WorldCat About the Passage Pilot
- 73. #ALAMW19 Reconciliation • Text searching for string matching and auto-suggest • SPARQL Endpoint for complex queries • An “Explorer” application for navigating the graph Editing • Using the default Wikibase UI • A “Retriever” application to import from other sources Collaboration • Discussion of use cases • Community Center • Office Hours, Partner Meetings Project Passage focused on ...
- 74. #ALAMW19 Entity-based Create linked data without needing to learn its technical underpinnings
- 75. Embeds multilingualism Courtesy of Xiaoli Li, UC Davis
- 76. Visualization in SPARQL queries
- 78. #ALAMW19 Passage Pilot Partners Case Studies
- 79. #ALAMW19 For more information oc.lc/linked-data Watch for upcoming report on Project Passage!
- 81. #ALAMW19 Stay connected Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhD Lynn Silipigni Connaway, PhD lynn_connaway@oclc.org Karen Smith-Yoshimura Senior Program Officer smithyok@oclc.org @KarenS_Y Betha Gutsche WebJunction Programs Manager gutscheb@oclc.org
Editor's Notes
- OCLC Research is pursuing a robust research agenda on the evolving scholarly record and Research Data Management.
- We produced a report tracing the contours of a scholarly record that is evolving to include a broader range of research outputs beyond articles and monographs. We recently completed another project, The Realities of RDM, which drills down into a key aspect of the evolving scholarly record: research data management. In this project, we produced a series of four reports exploring the context, influences and choices research universities face in building or acquiring RDM capacity. We provide a high level view of the RDM service space, and then look at how four different research universities developed RDM capacity within this space. We have taken this work forward by developing an RDM Learning Curriculum under the auspices of the OCLC Research Library Partnership. In this activity, we have conducted a webinar series based on our Realities of RDM project, and formed an RDM Interest Group where Partnership members can interact with OCLC Research staff and each other around shared RDM issues and challenges. Overall, this strand of work shows how our research helps libraries understand emerging trends in the information environment (like the Evolving Scholarly Record report); unpack these trends in the context of specific issues facing libraries today (like our RDM report series); and extend their knowledge in these areas by activating networks of learning and engagement around shared areas of interest (like our RDM activities within the Research Library Partnership).
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/adewale_oshineye/8711400023 by Ade Oshineye / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Ixchel Faniel and colleagues at the University of Michigan, School of Information (Rebecca Frank and Elizabeth Yakel) recently had an article accepted for publication. The study was designed to complement work digital curation researchers have done, which primarily focuses on curation and preservation activities to make content renderable over time. Ixchel and her colleagues expanded the discussion to curation activities that enable meaning making over the long term by preserving data’s context as well as physical content. With a specific focus on data reusers’ needs, the authors aimed to identify the context data producers and curators need to capture and manage during data collection and deposit into repositories. They found 12 context types that could be organized into three broad categories: 1) data production information (data collection, specimen and artifact, data producer, data analysis, missing data, research objectives), 2) repository information (provenance, reputation and history, curation and digitization), and 3) data reuse information (prior reuse, advice on reuse, terms of use).
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/136450582@N04/41345523395 by Garry Davies / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Ixchel Faniel and colleagues at the Department of Library and Information Science, Ewha Womans University (Jihyun Kim) and University of Michigan, School of Information (Elizabeth Yakel) have been examining metadata requirements in data deposit documentation from 20 repositories across 3 disciplines – archaeology, quantitative social science, and zoology. Findings showed repositories implicitly requested generalized metadata that aligned with the 15 Dublin Core metadata elements. Social science repositories demonstrated the highest degree of similarity among repositories in data deposit metadata. Zoology the least. Common elements across at least 75% of the 20 repositories were Description, Contributor, Creator. Data and Location were common across at least 50%. There were also elements unique to a discipline. Publisher and Language were more prevalent in archaeology. Confidentiality only appeared in social science repositories. Taxon and Sequence were unique to zoological repositories, though not universal. Given these findings, the implications for data curation being discussed include the 1) need for sufficient information about the context surrounding data production; 2) use of standardized vocabulary to support interoperability; and 3) need for specific information about rights (i.e. terms of use).
- In the past two years, OCLC Research has engaged in an arc of research related to Research Information Management, working with partner organizations including: librarian members of the OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP) LIBER (the Association of European Research Libraries) euroCRIS, the international organization for research information This has resulted in the three publications you see here, all of which are available openly through the link here: oc.lc/rim.
- Through this research, we have worked collaboratively to define Research Information Management in terms that are inclusive of different international practices and local terminologies, such as CRIS or Research Profiling System. We focus on the aggregation, curation, and utilization of metadata, which allows an institution to collect its scholarly output—and to combine that information with other data collected by the institution. We also recognize that RIM is an emerging area of activity or libraries, and our position paper, „Research Information Management: Defining RIM and the Library‘s Role,“ not only defines RIM but also documents how libraries are actively contributing to their instituional missions through RIM practice.
- In the recently published research report, “Practices and Patterns in Research Information Management,” we worked with euroCRIS to survey nearly 400 research institutions worldwide. This report provides the most comprehensive review of RIM practices to date, and provides institutions considering or implementing RIM systems with valuable information about existing practices, including standards, persistent identifiers, products, staffing, and interoperability challenges.
- An important role of Global Council Delegates is to reflect the interests, issues, concerns, and challenges that OCLC Members face, in the different regions. One way to contribute to this effort is to engage in open dialogs with OCLC Members in a given area of shared interest. The goal of these dialogs with members is to provide valuable insights to the Global Council, the members of OCLC leadership and help inform OCLC Research directions. This year, Global Council expressed interest in exploring the impact and use of open access/open content resources in libraries.
- The scope is intentionally expansive and includes all open content that is relevant to the large diversity of libraries. We define is as the full range of freely available, unrestricted, online content (including OA-scientific articles and e-books, pre-prints, open educational resources, governmental and non-governmental publications, grey literature, open datasets, open collections from digitized heritage, web-resources like YouTube videos, news websites, any freely available born-digital materials, etc.). Our target group includes all types of libraries across the globe; we want to gather all the different perspectives and be inclusive. Open Content is relevant to all libraries and we want as many of them to join the conversation. The conversation is intentionally broad and this will allow us to take a helicopter view of the whole Open Content landscape, bringing together the communities behind the content-silos of OA, the IRs, the digitized heritage collections, the open data movement, and so on. We will hear from different libraries and different regions, how important this type of content is to them and their users and how invested they are in this type of content.
- We developed a discussion guide and a survey to collect information and data. The survey questions are based on 14 categories of library activities and services supporting open content – from acquisition to preservation, from publishing to discovery. We ask how long they have carried out each of these activities; how successful they are and how much resources they invest in them relative to their total budget expenditures. We ask with which activities they would like to achieve faster impact and accelerate; at which scale they could achieve this and how OCLC can help. We have already heard back from some respondents that they found it a useful exercise and that it triggered them to think and talk about these questions with their staff. That is exactly what we had hoped for! Rachel Frick (Director of the OCLC Research Library Partnership) posted a blog on 25 October to announce the survey, provide some context and background and to reflect the thinking behind the survey. We are targeting the survey to the library director/assistant director level, because they have the overview of all open content related activities and responsibilities across their institution. They are best positioned to ensure the questions are answered by the right person from the right library division: which may be the manager of Collections; E-Resources; Digital Legal Deposit; Institutional Repository; Research Support Services; User Services; Policy Department; Assessment librarian; etc.
- The survey closes on 31 January. Please take the survey if you haven’t done so yet and help us promote it. The results of the survey will be shared broadly, across our allied networks. We hope that the outcomes will be interesting and lead to next steps.
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/joiseyshowaa/2095469768/ by joiseyshowaa / CC BY-SA 2.0 This research project is a 4-year IMLS-funded project that started December 1, 2015 Our focus is on students working in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. The students range from grade school to graduate school. Back in 2007 Williams and Rowland published a literature review about the information behavior of young people. A key conclusion was that the “Google generation are format agnostic and have little interest in the containers (reports, book chapters, encyclopedia entries).” They went on to say that this area is “still wide open” and “a hugely important issue for libraries and publishers.” Motivated by this conclusion and prior work by our collaborators at the University of Florida, we posed the research questions you see. Buhler, A., Cataldo, T. T., Faniel, I. M., Connaway, L. S., Valenza, J. K., Graff, R., Elrod, R., Putnam S., Cyr C., Towler, C., Hood, E., Fowler R., Howland S., Brannon B, Langer, K., Kirlew, S. (2015-2018). Researching students’ information choices: Determining identity and judging credibility in digital spaces. IMLS Grant Project LG-81-15-0155. http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/RSIC.
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/panchenks/28145846255 by Panchenks / CC BY-NC 2.0 Connaway, L. S., Buhler, A., Cataldo, T., Faniel, I., Valenza, J., Elrod, R., Graff, R., Putnam, S., Brannon, B., Hood, E., Fowler, R., Langer, K., Kirlew, S. (2018). What is “container collapse” and why should librarians and teachers care? OCLC Next. http://www.oclc.org/blog/main/what-is-container-collapse-and-why-should-librarians-and-teachers-care/.
- Confidence of Participants (How Confident Do You Feel in Selecting Online Information for Research Projects?) K-12 Not Confident 2, 2% Maybe Confident 0, 0% Somewhat Confident 21, 24% Pretty Confident 43, 50% Very Confident 20, 23% Adults Not Confident 2, 2% Maybe Confident 1, 1% Somewhat Confident 27, 30% Pretty Confident 41, 46% Very Confident 19, 21% Buhler, A., Cataldo, T. T., Faniel, I. M., Connaway, L. S., Valenza, J. K., Graff, R., Elrod, R., Putnam S., Cyr C., Towler, C., Hood, E., Fowler R., Howland S., Brannon B, Langer, K., Kirlew, S. (2015-2018). Researching students’ information choices: Determining identity and judging credibility in digital spaces. IMLS Grant Project LG-81-15-0155. http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/RSIC.
- Important to Know Container? (Do You Think It Is Important to Know Whether the Online Information is From a Book, Journal, Blog, Newspaper, etc.?) Elementary School Yes 20, 67% No 10, 33% Middle School Yes 21, 70% No 9, 30% High School Yes 22, 85% No 4, 15% Community College Yes 29, 97% No 1, 3% Undergraduate Yes 29, 97% No 1, 3% Graduate Yes 30, 100% No 0, 0% Buhler, A., Cataldo, T. T., Faniel, I. M., Connaway, L. S., Valenza, J. K., Graff, R., Elrod, R., Putnam S., Cyr C., Towler, C., Hood, E., Fowler R., Howland S., Brannon B, Langer, K., Kirlew, S. (2015-2018). Researching students’ information choices: Determining identity and judging credibility in digital spaces. IMLS Grant Project LG-81-15-0155. http://guides.uflib.ufl.edu/RSIC.
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/31246066@N04/4648505447 / by Ian Sane / CC BY 2.0 From: http://www.oclc.org/blog/main/what-is-container-collapse-and-why-should-librarians-and-teachers-care/
- While 54% of the total click events were to generate search results, only 39% of users left on a search results page. More than 50% of users left the system with a request to access an item online, an attempt to access an item physically, or an option to find its physical location. This discrepancy between all request categories and last request categories suggests that users were more likely to leave the system on a successful note. However, it cannot be determined whether the access attempts were successful, so conclusions must be made cautiously.
- Average session length in minutes was calculated, excluding zero-length sessions and sessions longer than 60 minutes. Academic users average 5.01 minutes per session. At 4.34 minutes, users from ARLs had the shortest sessions on average. In total, academic users average 2.16 searches per session. Again, ARL users had fewer searches per session (1.67). Academic users average 5.06 words per search. ARL users have a higher number of words per search (5.41).
- Log events for last requests and for the full sessions were categorized in the following way: Online Access Attempt: The user clicked an item or made a request to digitally access the full text of the item. Physical Access Attempt: The user clicked an item or made a request to place a hold on a physical copy of the item. Physical Access Option: Some users left the system after looking at holdings. In these cases, users were in a place in the system where they were able to identify the physical item call number and/or location. The interviews revealed that at least some of the participants looked for the item on the library shelf at this point. Since logs cannot reveal what users did after leaving the system, these users were categorized as having the option to physically access the item. Attempt to Save: The user made an attempt to export or otherwise save the citation. Search Results: The user made a request for search results. This could include a new search, refinement of an existing search, or the addition of limiters. Other: These requests and click events did not fit cleanly into any category, and there were no overarching themes to them. The analysis indicates that ARL users were the most likely to have an access attempt or option for both online and physical items. Community college users were the least likely to have a physical access option.
- A codebook to analyze themes within the interviews was developed by reviewing the interview transcripts. Common topics emerging from the transcripts were identified, grouped together, and formalized. The categories that emerged dealt with decision-making factors, search strategies, item formats, evaluation of resources, features that the user liked or desired, feelings of delight and frustration, the influence of the librarian or library instruction, and concerns about privacy.
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/atomictaco/4230244738/ by Atomic Taco / CC BY-SA 2.0
- This is a continuum and individuals may display visitor or resident characteristics in different contexts and situations. Visitors: functional use of technology, often linked to formal need (such as use of software for specific coursework, or organizing meetings through email contact); less visible/more passive online presence, more likely to favor face- to- face interactions (even as they use the internet to organize/schedule those interactions) Residents: significant online presence and usage; high level of collaborative activity online; contributions to the online environment in the form of uploading materials, photos, videos. White, David S., and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2011-2014. Visitors & Residents: What Motivates Engagement with the Digital Information Environment. Funded by JISC, OCLC, and Oxford University. http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/vandr/.
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomcollinsphoto/19008741635/ by Tom Collins/ CC BY-ND 2.0
- Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brewbooks/259437129 by brewbooks / CC BY-SA 2.0
- This grant-funded project grew out of a collaboration between the Public Library Association and OCLC’s WebJunction, to host a free, online Town Hall meeting about how public libraries were being impacted by the opioid crisis and opportunities to respond. There was a clear need and interest from the field to get more information, to learn from what other libraries were doing and to determine how they could move forward. That brings us today, with a project that is now in full swing.
- There are four key activities to this 16-month project. The first is to create a series of eight case studies on how public libraries are responding to the opioid crisis with their communities. We’ll be doing this by conducting onsite interviews at the eight libraries with library staff, staff at the organizations that libraries are partnering with, and community members who have used the library’s services. We’ll also be hosting cross-sector discussions with those outside of the library field to learn more about what they are doing, how libraries can align with their efforts and helping to surface the value of libraries as community partners. A call-to-action white paper will pull in the results of the case study research and the cross-sector discussions. We will be sharing updates and releasing findings along the way, but there will also be a concentrated effort at the end of the project to share the findings through free, public webinars. All of the work on this project team is being guided by a cross-sector steering committee and if you have any questions, you can contact Kendra Morgan at OCLC.
- All of the work on this project team is being guided by a cross-sector steering committee and if you have any questions, you can check out the project website, or contact Kendra Morgan at OCLC.
- Photo: Surveying Community Members by Car Martin on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/torontocat/31947418754/
- Background: The impetus for an “International Linked Data Survey for Implementers” were discussions with OCLC Research Library Partner metadata managers who were aware of a number of linked data projects or services but felt there must be more “out there”. In consultation with a number of colleagues and after some beta testing with a group of linked data implementers with the survey instrument, we conducted an initial survey in July – August 2014. The target audience were those who had already implemented a linked data project or service, or were in the process of doing so. Questions were asked both about publishing linked data and consuming linked data. I published the results in a series of posts on our HangingTogether blog. One of the first criticisms we received were that the results did not include some leading linked data implementers such as the national libraries of France and Germany. So we repeated the survey between 1 June and 31 July 2015. <click> The results were published in D-Lib Magazine. We were then curious about what might have changed in linked data implementations since 2015, so we repeated the survey again between 17 April and 25 May 2018. <click>The results were published in code4lib Journal last November.
- These are the countries represented by the 143 institutions which have implemented or are implementing at least one linked data project or service. US respondents numbered 60, or 42% of the total. Spain and the UK each had 14 respondents (10% each of the total) followed by The Netherlands’ 10 (7%). Canada and Germany complete the “top 5” non-US countries represented with 5 institutions each. Respondents from the United States to the 2018 survey accounted for 42% of the 81 responding institutions, with 34 institutions, followed by Spain (12), the United Kingdom (8), and The Netherlands (4). Canada, Germany, and Norway (3 each).
- We categorized the responding institutions by type. We were successful in our attempts to solicit responses from more national libraries in the 2015 survey compared to the 2014 survey, and almost the same number responded in 2018. Given that the survey was generally distributed on networks primarily used by libraries, most respondents in all three surveys tended to be from the library domain, with research libraries and national libraries the top two. The biggest change was for the first time <click> we received responses from service providers, which provide linked data services for their customers.
- The 81 institutions responding to the 2018 survey described 104 linked data projects/services, compared to 71 institutions responding to the 2015 survey in which 112 were described. Institutions who had responded to a previous survey did not always describe the same linked data projects or services. Of the 104 linked data projects or services described, only 42 had been described previously. Even when the same project or service was described, the respondent sometimes differed from the one who responded previously. Some respondents did not answer every question, so the totals for each question may vary. 75% of the linked data projects/services described in 2018 are in production, slightly higher than the 67% reported in 2015. 40% of the linked data projects/services described in 2018 have been in production for more than four years.
- Among those that publish linked data, these are the the top eight RDF vocabularies/ontologies reported in 2018 (used by at least 20% of respondents) compared to 2015. We observe substantial increases in Schema.org and BibFrame, with decreased usage of SKOS and FOAF in particular.
- Among those that consume linked data, these are the top 10 linked data sources consumed by the 2018 survey respondents compared to 2015. id.loc.gov and VIAF are still the top two linked data sources consumed. The biggest change <click> was the surge in consuming Wikidata, more than four times that in the linked data implementations in 2015. We also see big increases in consuming WorldCat.org and ISNI. The asterisks indicate the ones which also responded to the survey. These could be considered successful publishers of linked data by the degree to which others consume the data provided. NB Number of respondents to this question was almost the same: 69 in 2018 vs. 68 in 2015
- The IIIF consortium “provides continued support for adoption, experimentation, outreach, and a thriving community of libraries, museums, software firms, scholars, and technologists working with IIIF.”
- This particular project was designed from the start to be a partnership. First and foremost, the goal was to collaborate with our library partners on problem statements and provide tools to address those issues. Collaboration occurred through a variety of means: Community Center, tool used by many OCLC products to communicate with and get feedback about our services. We found that the discussion threads allowed for more interactive discussion than a listserv. While the discussion threads worked well for asking questions and sharing information and ways of thinking, we found that we really needed in-person discussions to grapple with the significant questions regarding how to describe bibliographic resource in a linked data environment. These discussions occurred through weekly virtual office hours. Office hours allowed the partners to talk through questions about the community norms and policies we wanted to establish. We also met virtually for monthly partner meetings for OCLC to push information out to the Partners in terms of new developments. The developments being pushed to partners in the monthly meetings revolved around reconciliation tools and tools for editing and creating which we hoped would demonstrate the value of linked data for improving resource-description workflows in libraries. The project started by spinning up our own instance of Wikibase. The features provided by this out-of-the-box solution, such as auto-suggest and editing, allowed OCLC staff to focus our energies on what our partners needed most (beyond that initial set of capabilities) as the project evolved. Coming from the MARC world, we catalogers aren’t accustomed to only saying something in one place and being able to make use of that information in other representations. To demonstrate the power behind the technology and the more flexible data model, we introduced the SPARQL endpoint quite early. While many of us adapted to SPARQL, we had a desire to see the information that was connected behind the scenes. What can we say? Old habits die hard. We used the Wikibase APIs to build a user interface which we called the Explorer. This interface pulled in reciprocal relationships and offered images and descriptions from DBpedia. Another tool we created as a result on focusing our efforts on the workflows that mattered most to our partners and because of the flexibility of the Wikibase APIs, was the Retriever. This tool wasn’t originally included in the scope of the pilot, but after much feedback on this topic, the technical members of our team provided a means to bring data into our Wikibase instance when it existed elsewhere. This allowed users to add a needed statement for a new item quickly and continue on with their work. This was the last enhancement provided as part of the project and easily got the best reception.
- The same entity—with the same identifier—can be described and displayed in different languages, in this case simplified Chinese. No need for someone adding Chinese descriptions to add transliterations as they would be handled by the descriptions created in other languages.
- These are all the Passage entities retrieved by a SPARQL query that had a “ “Translated from:” statement displayed in a timeline.
- During the Passage Project we learned how crucial a discovery layer was – not just for end users, but to the metadata creators to verify all the inverse relationships were indeed represented. In this case, we show that the original work, Sein und Zeit was translated into other languages. This “Explorer” interface I referred to earlier also pulled in offered images and descriptions from Dbpedia. And it served to remind us that the free text descriptions we’re used in putting into our MARC records could be pulled in from other sources instead in a linked data environment.
- During weekly “office hours”, Passage Pilot Partners showcased some of the case studies they were working on in describing resources in the Wikibase structure, highlighting the issues they encountered which often led to additional features or properties. These are some of them: digitized map, a poster for an event, a musical work associated with an event, a digitized postcard, and a photo within an archival collection. We all learned a lot! And it was so much fun!
- These three initiatives– as well as other OCLC Research activities related to linked data– are documented on our website. <click> We’re now finishing up an OCLC report on Project Passage, with contributions from 12 of our Project Passage participants – stay tuned!