Pathway to the Future: Library Bibliographic Services for the 21 st Century Amy Kautzman UCB Terry Ryan UCLA

University of California Overview 10 Campuses 10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, etc.) Melvyl (UC union catalog) SCP + merge algorithm Ex Libris ERMS + SFX Digital repositories

Bibliographic Services Task Force John Riemer, (Chair, UCLA) Head, Cataloging and Metadata Center Luc Declerck (UCSD) Associate Univ. Librarian, Technology and Technical Services Amy Kautzman (UCB) Head of Research and Collections: Doe/Moffitt Libraries Patti Martin (CDL) Bibliographic Services Manager Terry Ryan (UCLA) Associate University Librarian for the UCLA Electronic Library

BSTF Charge Inventory the end-user services supported by our biblio. processing data. Articulate the problems that need to be solved. Develop a vision and design principles. Analyze opportunities and costs and benefits. Deliver a report and develop an implementation road map.

Design Principles Work Smarter/Rationalize Workflow and Data Flow Resuscitate Metadata Provide User-Centered Search Services Get Users to the Content Rethink System Architecture to Focus on Services, not Systems Support Continuous Assessment & Improvement

In the (almost) Beginning

Thanks to MARC 01291nam a s2004 enk b eng 010 $a $a (alk. paper) 035 $a (Sirsi) i $a DLC $c DLC $d DLC $d OrLoB-B 042 $a pcc 049 $x jek $a BS651 $b.S $a 213 $ $a Shanks, Niall, $d $a God, the devil, and Darwin : $b a critique of intelligent design theory / $c Niall Shanks. 260 $a Oxford ; $a New York : $b Oxford University Press, $c $a xiii, 273 p. ; $c 22 cm. 504 $a Includes bibliographical references (p ) and index $t Foreword / $r Richard Dawkins -- $t Introduction: The Many Designs of the Intelligent Design Movement -- $g 1. $t The Evolution of Intelligent Design Arguments -- $g 2. $t Darwin and the Illusion of Intelligent Design -- $g 3. $t Thermodynamics and the Origins of Order -- $g 4. $t Science and the Supernatural -- $g 5. $t The Biochemical Case for Intelligent Design -- $g 6. $t The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design -- $t Conclusion: Intelligent Designs on Society. 596 $a 1

The Library ILS

Course Management Systems

Libraries Need Disparate Metadata to Work Together ONIX & MARC DUBLIN CORE & VRA

A Librarian’s Fantasy ONIX MARC Dublin Core VRA Core

Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

I Enhancing Search and Retrieval I.1Provide users with direct access to item I.2Provide recommender features I.3Support customization/personalization I.4Offer alternative actions for failed or suspect searches I.5Offer better navigation of large sets of search results I.6Deliver bibliographic services where the users are I.7Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text I.8Provide better searching for non-Roman materials

II Rearchitecting the OPAC II.1 Create a single catalog interface for all of UC II.2 Support searching across the entire bibliographic information space

III Adopting New Cataloging Practices Rearchitect cataloging workflow –Eliminate duplication –Agree on single set of policies –Implement a single data store for UC Select appropriate metadata scheme Manually enrich metadata in important areas Automate metadata creation

The Report Clearly Strikes a Chord Immediate interest within the University of California Lots of community reaction –Report hit the blogs –Interviews by the Library press –Invitations to present at conferences –Guest lectures at library schools

Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession Gives voice to some popular opinions –Our services must be user driven –Libraries need to act boldly if we are to reclaim our role in the information space –Libraries still have a unique value-add to offer

Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession Gives voice to some strongly held but controversial perspectives –Our assumptions about metadata should be re-examined –Metadata practices need to have proven value –An intuitive interface is not by definition “dumbed down” or anti-scholarly

BSTF Timeline Dec 04: University Librarians requested a bibliographic services review Feb 05: SOPAG planned exploratory mtg March 05: BSTF Charge drafted May 05: 1 st meeting of BSTF Aug 05: Interim report sent to SOPAG Dec 05: Final report delivered March 06: Campus comments due

Process for Consultation Systemwide groups and campuses asked to discuss the report and provide feedback All asked to respond to the same set of questions Mix of forced-choice and open-ended questions

Questions Which 3-5 major recommendations are most important? Which specific recommendations should we do first? Are there any recommendations to add? Are there any recommendations we should NOT do?

Questions Which option for a single OPAC should we pursue? Which organizational and architecture options for re-architecting cataloging workflow should we pursue? Any other comments on next steps? Anything else we should be doing to improve bibliographic services?

Preliminary UC Results: Popular recommendations I.1 Direct access to item I.4 Offer alternatives for failed searches I.5 Better navigation of large result sets I.6 Deliver services where the users are I.8 Better searching for non-Roman II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC II.2 Search across the info space III.1Re-architect cataloging workflow

Preliminary UC Results: Recommendations we love to hate III.2.c Consider abandoning controlled vocabulary for topical subjects III.1.a Option 2: consolidate cataloging into one or two centers across the state

Surprises? Not really Intelligent & well-intentioned people can disagree –Not all agree that change is imperative –All agree that we need to preserve our values while changing practices, but not all agree on what is a value and what is a practice Many of the underlying concepts are not well understood without explanation Many can’t endorse a recommendation if they don’t know how it will be funded.

Surprises! Fear of making the system “too easy” –“If they don’t need to ask us how to use it, we lose a teachable moment” –“If the system looks like Google, the rich diversity of our collections is lost” Belief that only undergraduates are demanding change –“Undergraduates need an easy system but true scholars like to see the complexity”

Surprises! Fear that the new system envisioned will offer less flexibility than our current systems –“A Google-like search box may work fine if you just need a few good things, but won’t support scholarly research” –“Our users and collections are too diverse to be served by a single solution.”

Moving from vision to decision Mar 06 - Preliminary feedback received Apr 06 - Analyze feedback and provide report to the University Librarians Jun 06 - University Librarians decide on actions Summer 06 - Task Force reconvenes to develop action plans