Presentation on theme: "Julie Zhu Senior Project Coordinator American Institute of Physics Chad Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian University of Wyoming Libraries March 2."— Presentation transcript:
Julie Zhu Senior Project Coordinator American Institute of Physics Chad Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian University of Wyoming Libraries March 2 nd 2011 Electronic Resources & Libraries
Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link resolver OpenURL Link resolver matches against knowledgebase to determine availability of electronic full text
The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases
If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver efficacy and creates a cascade of problems. In order to expect consistent metadata delivery from content providers, the requirements need to be consistent as well.
◦ Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries ◦ What – a universally acceptable holdings data format to improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain ◦ Where – throughout the supply chain & at the UKSG info hub ◦ When – Now Phase 1 Report – Jan Endorsement Phase – Began June 2010 Phase 2 in Development ◦ Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings data
Standards organizations ◦ UKSG and NISO Working group members (stakeholders): ◦ Knowledgebase vendors ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO ◦ Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators) ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing ◦ Subscription Agents ◦ Libraries & Consortia Full list --
KnowledgeBases And Related Tools A NISO recommended practice A universally acceptable holdings list format Tab-delimited text files Delivered via HTTP or FTP Guidelines for fields and values A single format for sharing holdings data across the scholarly content supply chain Hosted by providers Discoverable on the registry
Registry shortcut: istry
Culling, James. “Link Resolvers and the Metadata Supply Chain”Link Resolvers and the Metadata Supply Chain Inconsistent holding list metadata format ◦ Embargo period format Example relative vs. absolute embargo? ◦ Date/enumeration formats MM-DD-YYYY? / DD-MM-YYYY? Inconsistent metadata update procedures (See next slide)
Proactive reconciliation of an ejournal package list ◦ Request title list with detailed holdings info from publisher (repeatedly, naggingly) ◦ Compare with that of your subscription agent and KB vendor ◦ Now that you have 3 (or more) different title lists, translation phase includes dealing with: Number of titles and titles themselves ISSN mis-matches Title changes, mergers, acquisitions, new starts, and losses Publisher-reuse of ISSNs/title combinations Reconciling date discrepancies manually (and inconsistent/unlcear formats) ◦ Go live ◦ Lather, rinse, repeat!
Similar to the library’s process Need to contact providers again and again Invest a lot of time correcting data problems ◦ Investigating end-user queries and complaints Update procedures vary by provider If unable to get data from provider, may resort less preferable acquisition methods (web site inspection) ◦ Last resort, not preferred
KBART: A Publisher / Platform Perspective American Institute of Physics (AIP) publishes ◦ 12 physics journals ◦ volumes of AIP Conference Proceedings ◦ Physics Today, magazine ◦ AIP Advances, launched March 1, 2011 Scitation hosts ◦ 300+ serial titles from 30 publishers ◦ 500+ ebooks from 4 publishers ◦ 10,000+ volumes of conference proceedings from 8 publishers.
Ensure accessibility of digital content via library catalogs and link resolvers Improve discoverability Facilitate the shift from print models to online and online-only models Streamline metadata delivery to library service providers
Problems in Metadata ◦ Incomplete, inaccurate, inconsistent metadata ◦ Inconsistent metadata tagging and formatting from different publishers throughout the years ◦ Data stored in multiple systems Resources Shortages ◦ Staff shortages, competing projects Workflows and Tools ◦ Lack of flexible metadata schemas, policies and processes, quality controls ◦ Lack of collaborative metadata editing and authoring tools, user-friendly interface components
Short-term: manual, semi-automated, automated Long-term: ◦ invest in and develop better editorial workflow systems ◦ Standardize metadata tagging ◦ Fill in missing data and correct inaccurate data Collaboration with the library community (libraries, service providers, aggregators, etc.): ◦ join KBART working groups ◦ gain understanding of library needs ◦ provide recommendation and help shape new standards, i.e., ebooks, conference proceedings, etc.
First publisher KBART adopter ◦ s.jsp s.jsp
Example: Scitation Serial Titles List
Example: ASME eBooks List (KBART II in Progress)
Example: AIP Conference Proceedings Titles List
Phase 1 – Universally accepted standardized publisher metadata, regularly distributed AND available on demand Phase 2 – Broad adoption, Consortia, More content type coverage (eBooks, conference proceedings), Open Access Phase 3? – Even more content types, automated delivery, institutional metadata????
1. Review the requirement: 2. Format your title lists accordingly. 3. Self check to ensure they conform to the recommended practice 4. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data updates 5. Register your organization on the KBART registry website:
Julie Zhu Senior Project Coordinator American Institute of Physics Chad Hutchens Electronic Resources Librarian University of Wyoming Libraries Visit the Information Hub: Questions?