Pathway to the future library bibliographic services for the 21 st century
Download
1 / 43

Pathway to the Future: Library Bibliographic Services for the 21 st Century - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 76 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Pathway to the Future: Library Bibliographic Services for the 21 st Century' - hoai


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Pathway to the future library bibliographic services for the 21 st century

Pathway to the Future:Library Bibliographic Services for the 21st Century

Amy Kautzman UCB

Terry Ryan UCLA


University of california overview
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
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
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
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



Thanks to marc
Thanks to MARC

01291nam 22002774a 4500

00113089236

00520040304134833.0

008030211s2004 enk b

001 0 eng

010 $a 2003042916

020 $a 0195161998 (alk. paper)

035 $a (Sirsi) i0195161998

040 $a DLC $c DLC $d DLC $d OrLoB-B

042 $a pcc

049 $x jek

05000 $a BS651 $b .S54 2004

08200 $a 213 $2 21 1001  $a Shanks, Niall, $d 1959-

24510 $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 2004.

300 $a xiii, 273 p. ; $c 22 cm.

504 $a Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-268) and index.

50500 $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




Libraries need disparate metadata to work together
Libraries Need Disparate Metadata to Work Together

ONIX & MARC

DUBLIN CORE & VRA


A librarian s fantasy
A Librarian’s Fantasy

MARC

ONIX

DublinCore

VRACore



I enhancing search and retrieval
I Enhancing Search and Retrieval

  • I.1 Provide users with direct access to item

  • I.2 Provide recommender features

  • I.3 Support customization/personalization

  • I.4 Offer alternative actions for failed or suspect

    searches

  • I.5 Offer better navigation of large sets of search results

  • I.6 Deliver bibliographic services where the users are

  • I.7 Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text

  • I.8 Provide better searching for non-Roman materials


Ii rearchitecting the opac
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
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
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
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 profession1
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
BSTF Timeline

  • Dec 04: University Librarians requested a bibliographic services review

  • Feb 05: SOPAG planned exploratory mtg

  • March 05: BSTF Charge drafted

  • May 05: 1st meeting of BSTF

  • Aug 05: Interim report sent to SOPAG

  • Dec 05: Final report delivered

  • March 06: Campus comments due


Process for consultation
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
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?


Questions1
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
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
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
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
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”


Surprises1
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
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