The document discusses the challenges libraries face in transforming traditional library catalogs into search experiences that are as user-friendly as popular search engines. It outlines approaches libraries can take to improve search capabilities, such as harvesting metadata to create centralized indexes, enabling full-text search, and using faceted search and relevance ranking models. The goal is to provide users with integrated, easily navigable search results from a library's diverse range of resources.

1. Rethinking the library catalogue: making search work for the library user Sally Chambers The European Library [email_address] http://twitter.com/schambers3

2. Challenges for library search To survive the future, a library catalogue has to offer the same user experience as a library user’s favourite search engine How can libraries harness web technologies to provide a search engine like experience for their users? I hope to outline the challenges faced by librarians to transform the traditional library catalogue into a search-engine like user experience

3. Introducing to The European Library Unique access point for the catalogues and digital collections of the 48 National Libraries of Europe

4. Introducing to The European Library www.theeuropeanlibrary.org

5. Library I.R. protocols a client/server-based protocol for searching and retrieving information from remote databases http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/ http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/ SRU is a standard XML-focused search protocol for Internet search queries, utilizing CQL (Contextual Query Language), a standard syntax for representing queries

6. Library federated search

7. The difficulties of federated search

8. The difficulties of federated search

9. Results list per country (1)

10. Results list per country (2)

11. Issues with federated search Speed of return of results not up to current user expectations Search is dependent on individual services outside the library’s control (‘not responding’) Results are returned independently and therefore difficult to integrate into a single result list Ranking of results is not core functionality of federated search protocols

12. Towards integrated search The Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) is a low-barrier mechanism for repository interoperability. Data Providers are repositories that expose structured metadata via OAI-PMH. Service Providers then make OAI-PMH service requests to harvest that metadata. OAI-PMH is a set of six verbs or services that are invoked within HTTP. http://www.openarchives.org/pmh/

13. Metadata harvesting protocol http://193.200.14.178:8080/repox/OAIHandler? verb=ListRecords & set= Albymika_0001 &metadataPrefix =oai_dc

14. Towards integrated search

15. Integrated results list

16. Integrated results list Metadata is harvested and indexed in advance – no need to rely on real time federated search Availability of search is determined by the library, without needing to rely on remote servers As the metadata is in one place it is easier to present an integrated result list Ranking search results becomes possible ... but how?

17. Relevancy ranking in libraries? Users ‘used to good relevancy ranking’, e.g. in web search engines and can’t understand why user experience is generally inferior in libraries Ranking needed for results list which contain large amounts of data (for libraries) - estimated 180 million records in The European Library - but not web-scale Dealing with a diversity of library materials In many different languages see: Lewandowski (2009)

18. Diversity of library resources Metadata (catalogue) records (MARC format) -some link to digital objects, some not Metadata records (often Dublin Core format) - linking to digital objects Increasing amounts of full-text content with minimal metadata In other types of libraries, e-journals, institutional repositories etc. A mix of structured and un-structured data

19. Typical record in MARC format www.loc.gov/marc/

20. Full-text search www.ifla.org/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records

21. Full-text search

22. Full-text search

23. Full-text search

24. Full-text search

25. Faceted search examples

26. Faceted search examples

27. Faceted search examples

28. Faceted search examples

29. Faceted search examples

30. Faceted search examples

31. Ability to sort the results

32. Faceted search examples

33. Drop down ‘pick-list’

34. Faceted search examples

35. Faceted search examples

36. Visual search

37. Faceted search

38. Facets and ‘dirty’ data

39. Facets and ‘dirty’ data

40. Facets and ‘dirty’ data

41. Facets and ‘dirty’ data

42. A conceptual model for the bibliographic universe www.ifla.org/publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographic-records http:// www.loc.gov/cds/downloads/FRBR.PDF Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records —or FRBR, sometimes pronounced /ˈfɜrbər/ —is a conceptual entity-relationship model developed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) that relates user tasks of retrieval and access in online library catalogues and bibliographic databases from a user’s perspective http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Requirements_for_Bibliographic_Records

43. FRBR essentials

44. Refining by clustering

45. Refining by clustering

46. Libraries and linked data http://id.loc.gov http://viaf.org/

47. Mobile search … and all of this via a mobile device

48. References Lewandowski, D (2009) Ranking library materials (Pre-print version) www.bui.haw-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/lewandowski/doc/LHT2009_preprint.pdf Karen G. Schneider (2006) How OPACS suck, ALA TechSource How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It) www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html How OPACs Suck, Part 2: The Checklist of Shame www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html How OPACs Suck, Part 3: The Big Picture www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html

49. Thank you! Sally Chambers The European Library [email_address] http://twitter.com/schambers3