Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 University of California California Digital Library The Costs of Containment: Frameworks and the Web Peter Brantley BL l London l 2006.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 University of California California Digital Library The Costs of Containment: Frameworks and the Web Peter Brantley BL l London l 2006."— Presentation transcript:


2 1 University of California California Digital Library The Costs of Containment: Frameworks and the Web Peter Brantley BL l London l 2006

3 2 Huh? What the heck? Outline: 1.SoA as accommodation to a changed world 2.CDL's Common Framework as example of SoA 3.Some pitfalls with SoA found in practice 4.Wriggling out of new straightjackets

4 3 Transformations Its not about libraries any more: Scholarly work and communication are being transformed by new innovations and practices. Users seek not just content, but the ability to create and annotate, and a way to contribute within their own community. The optimum place for social software in IR domains is undiscovered, but of great interest.

5 4 MySpace

6 5 YouTube

7 6 Social apps popular With nearly 60 million registered users, 15 billion page views per month, and more than 150,000 new users signing up every day, MySpace is that rare social networking contagion that keeps spreading and growing. –Robert Young, in Om Maliks Blog, 26 Feb 2006

8 7 YouTube as a model … YouTube has captured the hearts and minds of the people as the place they go to post videos and find videos. … Content owners should pay attention to what consumers want to do with their content and find ways to satisfy these desires that can fit into a business model. –Fred Wilson, in A VC, 20 Feb 2006

9 8 Where in the Market?

10 9 CDL Common Framework The CDL is building an open, services oriented technical architecture that we call the Common Framework (CF). The CF provides an integration framework for DL services … And supports the integration of local and third- party tools/services via plug-in functions.

11 10 Services are layered The CF is a layered architecture, separating: –Front-end tools from … –Back-end services from … –Underlying data storage. The CF presents itself via both machine interfaces (web services through SOAP & Java APIs) and human interfaces (command line & browser tools).

12 11 CF in Flavors The CF supports several DL data models: –Archival (objects stored locally) –Metadata only (MD stored locally) –Portal (no data stored locally) Examples: –UC Digital Preservation Repository (Archival) –American West (MD only) –MetaSearch Infrastructure (Portal)

13 12 Bundle of Concepts The CF: –Is a philosophy governing software development … –A conceptual design for services … –A specific technical architecture … –A set of on the wire services … –A growing number of applications …

14 13 CF: Philosophy Composite, modular, lightweight are good. Design and implement services quickly. Reduce the need for application specific tweaking, twiddling. Make replacement and enhancement easy. Integration trumps re-invention.

15 14 CF: Design Applications are independent of services. Design atomic services to enable the easy construction or rebuilding of applications. New application « reuse existing services (or minor mods). Build for scale.

16 15 CF: Schematic

17 16 CF: Services > Apps

18 17 CF: Defined Services CF Services: Available now - Ingest, Indexing, Access, Admin and Account mgmt. In development - Search and Browse, Harvest and Capture, Rights mgmt, Collection mgmt, and MetaSearch

19 18 CF: Plug-Ins Local - NOID (Nice Opaque IDentifier, for the generation of ARK persistent identifiers) XTF (eXtensible Text Framework, for text indexing, searching, and browsing) Metadata Normalization and Enrichment (currently, primarily Date normalization)

20 19 CF: Ext Plug-Ins Third-Party - JHOVE (for validation and technical MD) SRB (for archival storage of bitstreams) MySQL (for MD and admin data storage) Heritrix (for web crawling) Ex-Libris MetaLib (for metasearch)

21 20 There be dragons!

22 21 No Greenfields Our SoA did not arise on a empty prairie. Existing applications and services must be rebuilt, or integrated through abstractions. Impacts on service delivery: Should we implement with old tech immediately, or wait for the new Framework version? Planning costs are (sometimes very) high.

23 22 It takes a while

24 23 SoA drawbacks SoA implementations are thorny roses: SoA internalizes enterprise sware dev. Development focuses on specification. Project interdependency can lead to resource contention and gridlocks. Technical barrier for software re-sellers is high and usually must be arbitrated.

25 24 Building for whom? CDL is struggling to define acceptable support commitments for various CF bundled services. Internally: how much do we encourage distributed adoption vs. our current centralized hosted model? Externally: how much support do we provide within an OSS environment? How much interoperation do we bake-in, both among CF installs and with foreign services?

26 25 We are not alone *.edu is not the only service provider for the academic community any more. Silicon Valley is busy building services for everyone - who are DLs building for? Insular frameworks are inexcusable. We work in a services ecosystem.

27 26 Virtual architecture Hypothetical BL Google-PAC: Indexes BLs local library catalog, and a UK OpenCourseWare site and IRs … Stores metadata structures in Google Base … Integrates with Google Books and the OCA … Links to journals in Google Scholar via SFX … Queries OCLC WorldCat for branch locations.... Its possible now.

28 27 Rapid dev … on foot Integration is fast; SoA development is not. Difficult (although not impossible) to rapidly prototype within SoA architectures. Pace of new feature accretion in SoA must be inherently slower than silo app development. New SoA srvcs require staff/resource coord. SoA is like building a CBD, vs. Quonset huts.

29 28 The Lessons for CDL Work hard at defining the Framework core, but leave it a bit porous at the boundary. Push on the edge with rapid dev, internal to the CF when possible, external when not. When prototyping is possible: Throw the first one away and then integrate into CF. Loosely-couple external services.

30 29 Fast dev example CDL Re lvyl Recommender system - A Mellon-funded project to explore relevance ranking and recommending for library OPAC. Built on top of XTF-standalone (no CF). XML files-based system created through a merge of multiple source extracts. New features added to XTF for extra crunchy relevance and recommending goodness.

31 30 Re lvyl search

32 31 Results by Relevance

33 32 Recommended Results

34 33 Framework accretion Re lvyl is designed to be calved off as a separate set of services, i.e., ranking and recommending. Easy to incorporate into the Common Framework. Could work with a range of backend data inputs, or be integrated into external applications. SoA allows us to scope narrowly at first (biblio. services) and then expand utilization over time.

35 34 An integrative service Hypothetical service : Take Google Book Search, and add Re lvyl- type recommendations. All Google Book Search users get expert (i.e., research university) recommendations. If authenticated as a UC user, could get extra toppings, such as inline pointers to catalog records for recommended items, maybe via SFX linking.

36 35 Future for services Polygamous recombination may be the most likely future for library services. Be open to integration with diverse actors, and information and service providers. Portal to info services can be anywhere. Libraries: The Data of Choice.

Download ppt "1 University of California California Digital Library The Costs of Containment: Frameworks and the Web Peter Brantley BL l London l 2006."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google