Discovery and Delivery Innovations and Challenges Introducing the

Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and Challenges Introducing the Open Discovery Initiative Marshall Breeding http: //www. librarytechnology. org/ http: //twitter. com/mbreeding Sunday, June 24, 2012 1

Library search and discovery BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 2

Evolution of library search • • • Card Catalogs Online Catalogs Federated search tools Next-generation library catalogs Index-based discovery services 3

Online Catalog Search: Search Results ILS Data Scope of Search • Books, Journals, and Media at the Title Level • Not in scope: – Articles – Book Chapters – Digital objects

Discovery Interfaces Search: ILS Data Digital Collections Local Index Pro. Quest Search Results Federated Search Engine EBSCOhost … MLA Bibliography ABC-CLIO Real-time query and responses

Index-based Discovery ILS Data Digital Collections Search Results Consolidated Index Search: Web Site Content Institutional Repositories Aggregated Content packages … E-Journals Reference Sources Pre-built harvesting and indexing

Citations > Full Text • Citations or structured metadata provide key data to power search & retrieval and faceted navigation • Indexing full-text of content amplifies access • Important to understand depth indexing – Currency, dates covered, full-text or citation – Many other factors

Facilitate a healthy ecosystem among discovery service providers, libraries and content providers

Need to bring Order to Chaos • • • Important space for libraries and publishers Discovery brings value to library collections Discovery brings uncertainty to publishers Uneven participation diminishes impact Ecosystem dominated by private agreements • Complexity and uncertainty poses barriers for participation 9

Library Perspective • Strategic investments in subscriptions • Strategic investments in Discovery Solutions to provide access to their collections, including access to electronic resources • Expect comprehensive representation of resources in discovery indexes – Problem with access to resources not represented in index – Encourage all publishers to participate and to lower thresholds of technical involvement and clarify the business rules associated with involvement • Need to be able to evaluate the depth and quality of these index-based discovery products • Facilitate a healthy ecosystem among publishers, discovery service providers, and libraries

Collection Coverage? • To work effectively, discovery services need to cover comprehensively the body of content represented in library collections • Why do some publishers not participate? • Is content indexed at the citation or full-text level? • What are the restrictions for non-authenticated users? • How can libraries understand the differences in coverage among competing services?

Evaluating the Coverage of Index -based Discovery Services • Intense competition: how well the index covers the body of scholarly content stands as a key differentiator • Difficult to evaluate based on numbers of items indexed alone. • Important to ascertain how your library’s content packages are represented by the discovery service. • Important to know what items are indexed by citation and which are full text

Some Key Areas for Publishers 1. 2. 3. 4. Expose content widely Trust “Fair” Linking Usage reporting

OPEN DISCOVERY INITIATIVE 14

ODI Pre-History • June 26, 2011: Exploratory meeting @ ALA Annual • July 2011: NISO expresses interest • Aug 7, 2011: Proposal drafted by participants submitted to NISO • Aug 2011: Proposal accepted by D 2 D • Vote of approval by NISO membership • Oct 2011: ODI launched • Feb 2012: ODI Workgroup Formed 15

Organization • Reports in NISO through Document to Delivery topic committee (D 2 D) • Staff support from NISO through Nettie Lagace • Co-Chairs – Jenny Walker (Ex Libris) – Marshall Breeding (Library Consultant) • D 2 D Observers: Jeff Penka (OCLC) Lucy Harrison (CCLA) 16

Balance of Constituents Libraries Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt University Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard University Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Anya Arnold, Orbis Cascade Alliance Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon Lucy Harrison, College Center for Library Automation (D 2 D liaison/observer) Michele Newberry, Florida Virtual Campus Publishers Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Beth La. Pensee, ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka Service Providers Jenny Walker, Ex Libris Group John Law, Serials Solutions Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC) Jeff Penka, OCLC (D 2 D liaison/observer) 17

ODI Project Goals: • Identify … needs and requirements of the three stakeholder groups in this area of work. • Create recommendations and tools to streamline the process by which information providers, discovery service providers, and librarians work together to better serve libraries and their users. • Provide effective means for librarians to assess the level of participation by information providers in discovery services, to evaluate the breadth and depth of content indexed and the degree to which this content is made available to the user.

Subgroups for Info Gathering • Level of Indexing + Communication of Library Rights • Technical formats • Usage Statistics • Fair Linking 19

Specific deliverables • Standard vocabulary • NISO Recommended Practice: – Data format & transfer – Communicating content rights – Levels of indexing, content availability – Linking to content – Usage statistics – Evaluate compliance • Inform and Promote Adoption 20

Timeline Milestone Target Date Appointment of working group December 2011 Approval of charge and initial work plan March 2012 Agreement on process and tools June 2012 Completion of information gathering October 2012 Completion of initial draft March 2013 Completion of final draft May 2013 Status 21

ODI Stakeholder Survey • Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4, 2012 • Each subgroup developed questions pertinent to it area of concern 22

Survey Responses • • 782 Librarians 74 Publishers 15 Discovery Services 871 Total 23

Selected results • Libraries: do you use a discovery service? – Yes: 74%, Planning to soon: 17%, No: 5%, Don’t know: 4% • Smallest discoverable unit: – Component title: 9%, Article: 25%, Collective work record: 11%, All the above: 50% • Linking from A&I entry: 75 prefer linking to full text on original publisher’s server 24

Librarian’s preferred Use statistics • Total Number of Searches • List of search query terms • Referring URLs 25

Content providers (74) • Contribute data: Yes-All: 44%, Some: 48%, No: 8% – Current data: 12%, Current + back files: 85 • Barriers to contributing: – IP concerns, technology, staff resources • Challenges in delivery: – Complicated formats: 15%, transmission of data: 18, allocation of personnel: 23%, can’t automate: 12%, None: 20% 26

Issues surrounding A&I resources • Concern that A&I resources not be freely available to non authenticated users and only for subscribing institutions • How to “credit” A&I data that contributes to search results – Example: Index entry produced by enhancing full-text with A&I data • Preservation of the value added by A&I in the discovery ecosystem 27

ODO Survey Report • NOT the final report for ODI • Survey findings, especially for those that responded to survey • One source of input for the ODI final report of findings and recommended practices 28

Current work Next Steps • Follow-up interviews with content providers – Gather additional information not well represented in the survey questions • Complete review of subgroup reports • Develop draft report synthesizing subgroup findings and recommendations • Public comment period for draft report • Develop final report incorporating comments 29

Connect with ODI • ODI Project website: http: //www. niso. org/workrooms/odi/ • Interest group mailing list: http: //www. niso. org/lists/opendiscovery/ • Email ODI: odi@niso. org 30