NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases May 14, 2014 Speakers: Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/
78
Embed
NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
Link resolvers have become an important element of providing access to full-text electronic content and are now ubiquitous in both the library and publishing community. These systems work well enough a majority of the time. However, they are not entirely problem free, and as a result users may not always obtain access to information which their institutions have licensed for them. The management of the large volumes of linking data necessary to support these services is a problem in scale as well as in detail. Several NISO projects have sought to improve the reliability of these systems, including the Knowledgebases and Related Tools (KBART) and Improving OpenURL through Analytics (IOTA) initiatives.
This webinar will highlight these NISO projects and other community initiatives launched to create community-managed knowledge base repositories.
Agenda
Introduction Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO
Building the Global Open Knowledgebase Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries
KBART: A Recommended Practice to Increase Accessibility and Discovery Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries
What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content:
Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
May 14, 2014Speakers:
Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries
Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries
Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University
KBART Phase II: Ensuring Access with Accurate Metadata
Chad Hutchens
Head of Digital Collections
University of Wyoming Libraries
KBART Working Group
KnowledgeBases And Related Tools
Metadata Supply Chain
Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link resolver
Metadata Supply Chain
The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases
The Problem
If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver and all systems reliant upon it (discovery services, OPAC, ILL, etc.)
KBART Background
Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries What – Universal holdings metadata format to improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain Where – NISO KBART Workroom http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart When – Phase I – Released Jan 2010Endorsement of Phase I – Began June 2010Phase II - Released April 7, 2014 *Supercedes KBART Phase I*
Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings data
Who is behind KBART II
Standards organizations UKSG and NISO
Working group members (stakeholders): Knowledgebase vendors
ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing, Springer Subscription Agents Libraries & Consortia
Full list –http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/phase2roster/
KBART Registry
Clearinghouse for KBART metadata
Endorsed publishers, vendors, etc.
Contact information
URL's to KBART metadata
https://sites.google.com/site/kbartregistry/
Original Phase I Fields (16)
Updating the Rec’s
Spreading the word and outreach
Working with content providers, vendors, etc.
Soliciting broad feedback (all feedback included in Phase II Recommendations)
Focus on 3 new areas
3 Areas of Emphasis
Freely available content
Ebooks & Conference Proceedings
Consortial Holdings
9 new fields (for a total of 25) & applicable new guidelines
Free Content: New Field
1 new field, 1 modification to existing field
New “access_type” field
Type can be “F,” for free content, or “P” for paid content (is aligned with OAMI rec’s thus far)
Free text describing details may be entered into existing “coverage_notes” field.
Free Content Issues
KBART is not endorsing any particular Open Access model
• For “F” to be used, 100% of title’s content must be freely available
Difficulty with hybrid titles (author pays OA, embargoes, rolling access walls, etc.)
Needs to be addressed at the article-level
Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 1
8 new fields total
1 new field applies to differentiate formats
New “publication_type” field
Type can be “monograph,” “journal,” or “conference proceeding”
Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 2
Field Description
publication_type Serial (i.e., journals and conference proceeding series) or monograph (i.e., book, eBook, conference proceeding volume)
date_monograph_published_print Date of monograph first published in print
date_monograph_published_online Date of monograph first published online
monograph_volume Number of volume for monograph (applicable to eBooks and conference proceedings; for proceedings, volume within the conference proceedings series)
monograph_edition Edition for book
first_editor First editor (for monographs, i.e., ebooks or conference proceedings volumes)
parent_publication_title_id Title ID of parent publication (for a conference proceeding volume, its parent_publication_title_id is the title_id of the conference proceedings series)
preceding_publication_title_id Title ID of preceding publication title, for journal serials and conference proceeding serials.
Ebook & Conference Proceedings: Issues
Some existing fields already apply to monographs and serials (e.g. identifier fields for ISSN/ISBN)
Some new fields are used for certain formats(e.g. “monograph_edition”)
“preceeding_publication_title_ID” can be problematic
Consortial Holdings
Librarians & consortium managers really wanted
this (and more)!
Lack of readily available consortium lists
No new fields for this area specifically, rather, new guidelines
Consortial Holdings: Guidelines
Will require separate lists under 2 circumstances:
Global lists (i.e. universal list) Ex:JSTOR_Global_AllTitles_2013-01-14.txt
Consortium specific lists Ex: Oxford_SCELC_AllTitles_2013-01-09.txt
Region specific lists Ex: Springer_Asia-Pacific_Medicine_2013-01-28.txt
How we got to Phase II
Draft of KBART Phase II released Oct, 2013 for public comment period
Received 45+ comments Group met and discussed each individually Nettie, Chad, Magaly spend holidays drafting
responses and making changes to rec’s ;) D2D Committee approves Phase II, April 7,
2014! NISO KBART RP-9-2014 is at:
http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/rp-9-2014/
What's next?
6 month transition to Phase II, target of September, 2014!
Standing committee Focus on endorsement, maintenance Work with new content providers
Useful Resources to Google
NISO KBART Workroom
KBART Phase I Final Report
KBART Phase II Final Report (RP-9-2014)
KBART Registry
Link Resolvers and the Information Supply Chain
What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative
NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
May 14, 2014
Adam Chandler, Cornell University
What was IOTA?
2010-2013 NISO Working Group that measured 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.
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.
Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons
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.
Cons:
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.
• Once set up, the static links to full texts were accurate.
• Debugging is easy: A&I --> Full Text
Pros:
Cons:
Advent of OpenURL
Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos.
• Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request. Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings.
• Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking.
• Indicates provider of "appropriate copy"
Solution: A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")
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).
• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers.
• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking.
Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking
Pros:
• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers.
• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking.
Cons:
• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: debugging is very hard and does not scale.
• No systematic method exists to benchmark linking, and thus, dynamic reference linking has not improved significantly since version 0.1 of the standard.
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.
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 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.
IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups
IOTA
• Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking;
• Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by:
– OpenURL providers.
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;
IOTA’s Basic Assumptions
• Results achieved through an analytical investigation of how OpenURL links work.
• Practical: Not the OpenURL standard that was addressed, but links (OpenURLs) generated by standard.
• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant improvement in linking success rate. "small changes. big improvements"
(A) Usefulness of comparing OpenURLs
• 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.
http://openurlquality.org/
Report types
• Source reports– Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database– A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)– B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)
• Element / Pattern reports– Viewing how a particular (1) element or format– A. is used across vendors– B. is used across databases
Report types
• Source reports– Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database– A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)– B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)
• Element / Pattern reports– Viewing how a particular (1) element or format– A. is used across vendors– B. is used across databases
(B) OpenURL Quality Index:Rating vendors by their OpenURLs
1. Core Elements:• Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting
system;• 27M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content
providers. 2. Scoring System:
• Assumption: Correlation exists between• # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & ability of
OpenURLs to link to specific content. 3. Element Weighting:
• Assigned based on their relative importance:• spage vs atitle• issn vs jtitle• doi/pmid vs date, etc.
Further investigation was needed
Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:
Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs
spage, etc.)
Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• 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?
Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• 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?• knowledge base,• resolver,• full-text provider (target).
http://www.niso.org/publications/tr/
It is impossible to give each OpenURL element a universal weight.
Therefore, an industry wide OpenURL quality index is impossible.