1

Introducing theOpen Discovery

Initiative

Discovery and Delivery: Innovations and Challenges

Marshall Breedinghttp://www.librarytechnology.org/http://twitter.com/mbreeding Sunday, June 24, 2012

BACKGROUND AND ISSUES

Library search and discovery

2

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

3

Online Catalog

• Books, Journals, and Media at the Title Level

• Not in scope:– Articles– Book Chapters– Digital objects

Scope of SearchSearch:

Search Results

ILS Data

Discovery Interfaces Search: Digital

Collections

ProQuest

EBSCOhost

…MLA

Bibliography

ABC-CLIO

Search Results

Real-time query and responses

ILS Data

Local Index

Federated S

earch E

ngine

Index-based DiscoverySearch:

Digital Collections

Web Site ContentInstitutiona

l Repositorie

s

…E-Journals

Reference Sources

Search Results

Pre-built harvesting and indexing

Consolidated Index

ILS Data

Aggregated Content packages

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 Publishers1. Expose content widely2. Trust 3. “Fair” Linking4. 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 D2D• 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 (D2D)• Staff support from NISO through

Nettie Lagace• Co-Chairs

– Jenny Walker (Ex Libris)– Marshall Breeding (Library Consultant)

• D2D Observers: Jeff Penka (OCLC)Lucy Harrison (CCLA)

16

Balance of Constituents

Libraries

Publishers

Service Providers

17

Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt UniversityJamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard UniversityKen Varnum, University of Michigan

Anya Arnold, Orbis Cascade Alliance

Sara Brownmiller, University of OregonLucy Harrison, College Center for Library Automation (D2D liaison/observer)Michele Newberry, Florida Virtual Campus

Lettie Conrad, SAGE PublicationsBeth LaPensee, ITHAKA/JSTOR/PorticoJeff Lang, Thomson Reuters

Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc

Aaron Wood, Alexander Street PressRoger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka

Jenny Walker, Ex Libris GroupJohn Law, Serials SolutionsMichael Gorrell, EBSCO Information ServicesDavid Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)

Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)

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 Adoption20

Timeline

Milestone Target Date

Status

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

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