Z39.50 and UK HE Digital/Electronic Libraries

Matthew J. Dovey

Oxford University

ZIG – Washington December 2000

Digital\Electronic Library Activities in the UK (H.E.)

• Primarily funded by the JISC– eLib Phases 1 & 2

– eLib Phase 3

– RDN

– DNER

eLib Phases 1 & 2

• Mid 1990’s

• Formation of information sources/services

• MODELS workshops (UKOLN) began to consider integration issues

eLib Phase 3

• Consolidation effort– Hybrid Libraries

• integrating heterogeneous electronic sources

• integrating electronic and traditional resources

– “Clumps”• Virtual Union Catalogues

• ILL secondary

– Long Term Preservation

Hybrid Libraries

• Builder– Chose to work with library vendor to develop

API rather than use Z39.50• Existing Z39.50 interface poor• Needed to integrate library services into their other

internet enable services so looking for components to drop into web server (IIS)

• To high learning curve• Vendor more amenable to developing bespoke API

than improving Z39.50

Hybrid Libraries

• MALIBU– Heterogeneous search engine

• Most information sources are available as web services, but not Z39.50 enabled

– Commercial information providers -no interest in offering Z39.50

– Non-commercial – no resources for consultancy or high-powered programming, no wish to deploy a replacement or parallel system

• Built on a stateless agent ontology model– Web “screen-scraping” agents– Z39.50 agents – primarily library catalogues only– Search base on common denominator (free text)

Hybrid Libraries

• Generic Issues– Few Z39.50 sources (mainly just libraries)– Overhead not justified by benefits

• Poor implementations• Some features not applicable to web gateway UI

– State– Bib-1 abstraction (Web users used to free-text query)

– Query whether users want to cross search• Rutger’s Study – ACM DL99• Future DNER Evaluation work

– Few Desktop tools• No browser incorporation• Now is in major bibliography packages

Clumps

• Problems Encountered– Local IT ignorance– Library System Vendor Ignorance– Incorrect implementations– Limited implementations– Implementation variation (hence Bath Profile)– Unrealistic expectations

RDN

• Resource Discovery Network– 6(?) Subject Oriented Gateways of quality

internet resources– Central Searching - ROADS based on whois++

• Lightweight, easier to implement

• Does the required job without other baggage

• Offers mechanisms for forward knowledge

DNER

• Distributed Network for Electronic Resources– Goal to provide an integrated environment for

the UK HE Information services– Need a protocol for this brokering

• Candidates:– Z39.50– Whois++– DASL– DIENST

DNER

• Arguments for Z39.50 as backbone– No suitable alternatives yet

• Arguments against– Few implementations amongst sources– Perceived broken (poor implementations)– Heavy weight and expensive (are its strength’s relevant)– Too heavily library as oppose to other communities or IR/free-text– Not easy to plug in (often need parallel system)– Perceived difficult to integrate with current/forthcoming

internet/WWW technologies.– Maybe be replaced by such a internet/WWW technology