NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content:

Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases

May 14, 2014Speakers:

Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries

Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries

Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University

http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/

Kristen WilsonMay 14, 2014

BUILDING THE GLOBAL OPEN

KNOWLEDGEBASE

OVERVIEW

What is

GOKb?

The proble

m space

How can

GOKb help?

Next steps

An enhanced knowledgebase

A community-managed knowledgebase

An open data knowledgebase

WHAT IS GOKB?

GOKB PARTNERS

GOKB TIME LINE

2012 2013 2014 20152011 2016

GOKb and KB+ collaborate on data

model

GOKb Phase I:Proof of Concept

Release

Funded by Mellon Foundation & Kuali

OLE Partnership

GOKb Public

Release

Community development New partners

Enhanced functionaityGOKb Phase II:Partner Release

THE PROBLEM SPACE

• Kbs were primarily used for access

• They became a part of the add-on ERMS

• Movement toward integrated systems

• A positive and necessary experience.

The Kb experime

nt

THE PROBLEM SPACE

• Kbs are needed for management too

• Identifiers are crucial

• We need to manage all e-resources

• Systems should be integrated and Kb-centric

Lessons learned

Managing the right “thing”

Going beyond bibliographic description

Creating identifiers for what we need to manage

WHY KB-CENTRIC?

Title: Tetrahedron Letters

Format: Electronic

Publisher: Elsevier

Package: Freedom Collection

Platform: ScienceDire

ct

Enhanced data means we can manage what’s important

Open data means that the knowledgebase is not wedded to any one system

Community-managed data means we contribute directly to the quality of the knowledgebase

HOW CAN GOKB HELP?

ENHANCED DATA: THE TIPP

Global (GOKb)

Local

Title changes ISSN change as principal indicatorEarlier Related Title and Later Related Title

Titles within a package on a platform (TIPPs)

Organization role changes, especially Publisher transfers

ENHANCED DATA: CHANGES OVER TIME

GOKb

TIPP

E-ISSN

P-ISSN

DOI

Vendor ID

Catalog ID

ENHANCED DATA: IDENTIFIERS

GOKb is just data – it’s not tied to any one system

GOKb will support Kuali OLE and KB+ -- but it can support any other project too

External systems will access data via API

GOKb will include a co-referencing service to crosswalk between different sets of identifiers

OPEN DATA

COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA: DOING MORE TOGETHER

• Publisher Data• Package information• Standard licences

Global (GOKb)

• National/Consortial information• National licences• Central Services

National (KB+)

• Local holdings• Financial information• Documentation

Institutional

(OLE)

Initial ingest: OpenRefine Apply rules Validate data

Working with data: GOKb web application Browse and search data Make corrections Submit error reports

COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA: TOOLS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

GOKB DEMO: OPEN REFINE

GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION

GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION

Data collectionEbooksLinked data

Building community

NEXT STEPS

It’s a community, not a start upEnsure consistency of data across supply

chainOpen data and softwareExtensible community model for data

managementStructured participation will be possible for:

National Kbs Vendors Individual libraries

WHY SHOULD YOU GET INVOLVED?

Kristen WilsonGOKb EditorAssociate Head of Acquisitions & DiscoveryNorth Carolina State University Librarieskristen_wilson@ncsu.edu

gokb.org

QUESTIONS?

KBART Phase II: Ensuring Access with Accurate Metadata

Chad Hutchens

Head of Digital Collections

University of Wyoming Libraries

KBART Working Group

KnowledgeBases And Related Tools

Metadata Supply Chain

Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link resolver

Metadata Supply Chain

The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases

The Problem

If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver and all systems reliant upon it (discovery services, OPAC, ILL, etc.)

KBART Background

Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries What – Universal holdings metadata format to improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain Where – NISO KBART Workroom http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart When – Phase I – Released Jan 2010Endorsement of Phase I – Began June 2010Phase II - Released April 7, 2014 *Supercedes KBART Phase I*

Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings data

Who is behind KBART II

Standards organizations UKSG and NISO

Working group members (stakeholders): Knowledgebase vendors

ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators)

ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing, Springer Subscription Agents Libraries & Consortia

Full list –http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/phase2roster/

KBART Registry

Clearinghouse for KBART metadata

Endorsed publishers, vendors, etc.

Contact information

URL's to KBART metadata

https://sites.google.com/site/kbartregistry/

Original Phase I Fields (16)

Updating the Rec’s

Spreading the word and outreach

Working with content providers, vendors, etc.

Soliciting broad feedback (all feedback included in Phase II Recommendations)

Focus on 3 new areas

3 Areas of Emphasis

Freely available content

Ebooks & Conference Proceedings

Consortial Holdings

9 new fields (for a total of 25) & applicable new guidelines

Free Content: New Field

1 new field, 1 modification to existing field

New “access_type” field

Type can be “F,” for free content, or “P” for paid content (is aligned with OAMI rec’s thus far)

Free text describing details may be entered into existing “coverage_notes” field.

Free Content Issues

KBART is not endorsing any particular Open Access model

• For “F” to be used, 100% of title’s content must be freely available

Difficulty with hybrid titles (author pays OA, embargoes, rolling access walls, etc.)

Needs to be addressed at the article-level

Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 1

8 new fields total

1 new field applies to differentiate formats

New “publication_type” field

Type can be “monograph,” “journal,” or “conference proceeding”

Ebooks & Conference Proceedings, Part 2

Field Description

publication_type Serial (i.e., journals and conference proceeding series) or monograph (i.e., book, eBook, conference proceeding volume)

date_monograph_published_print Date of monograph first published in print

date_monograph_published_online Date of monograph first published online

monograph_volume Number of volume for monograph (applicable to eBooks and conference proceedings; for proceedings, volume within the conference proceedings series)

monograph_edition Edition for book

first_editor First editor (for monographs, i.e., ebooks or conference proceedings volumes)

parent_publication_title_id Title ID of parent publication (for a conference proceeding volume, its parent_publication_title_id is the title_id of the conference proceedings series)

preceding_publication_title_id Title ID of preceding publication title, for journal serials and conference proceeding serials.

Ebook & Conference Proceedings: Issues

Some existing fields already apply to monographs and serials (e.g. identifier fields for ISSN/ISBN)

Some new fields are used for certain formats(e.g. “monograph_edition”)

“preceeding_publication_title_ID” can be problematic

Consortial Holdings

Librarians & consortium managers really wanted

this (and more)!

Lack of readily available consortium lists

No new fields for this area specifically, rather, new guidelines

Consortial Holdings: Guidelines

Will require separate lists under 2 circumstances:

1) Package consists of unique titles-or-

2) Package consists of unique coverage dates

Consortial Holdings: File naming conventions

“[ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[PackageName] _[YYYY-MM-DD].txt”

Global lists (i.e. universal list) Ex:JSTOR_Global_AllTitles_2013-01-14.txt

Consortium specific lists Ex: Oxford_SCELC_AllTitles_2013-01-09.txt

Region specific lists Ex: Springer_Asia-Pacific_Medicine_2013-01-28.txt

How we got to Phase II

Draft of KBART Phase II released Oct, 2013 for public comment period

Received 45+ comments Group met and discussed each individually Nettie, Chad, Magaly spend holidays drafting

responses and making changes to rec’s ;) D2D Committee approves Phase II, April 7,

2014! NISO KBART RP-9-2014 is at:

http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/rp-9-2014/

What's next?

6 month transition to Phase II, target of September, 2014!

Standing committee Focus on endorsement, maintenance Work with new content providers

Useful Resources to Google

NISO KBART Workroom

KBART Phase I Final Report

KBART Phase II Final Report (RP-9-2014)

KBART Registry

Link Resolvers and the Information Supply Chain

What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative

NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases

May 14, 2014 

Adam Chandler, Cornell University

What was IOTA?

2010-2013 NISO Working Group that measured the relative importance of the elements that make up OpenURL links to help vendors improve their OpenURL strings so that the maximum number of OpenURL requests resolve to a correct record.

Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking

 • Certain A&I database providers (e.g., CSA, PubMed)

offered full-text linking options for a select number of content providers.

• Libraries manually activated full-text linking with providers they had subscriptions with.

 

Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons

Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons

• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for each full-text provider.

• A&I providers offering this option were few.

• Selection of full-text providers was limited. 

Cons:

Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons

• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for each full-text provider.

• A&I providers offering this option were few.

• Selection of full-text providers was limited. 

• Once set up, the static links to full texts were accurate.

• Debugging is easy: A&I --> Full Text

Pros:

Cons:

Advent of OpenURL

Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos. 

• Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request. Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings.

• Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking.

• Indicates provider of "appropriate copy"

Solution: A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")

A, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objects for the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44 (November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2010).

OpenURL: syntax, resolver, linking nodes

http://www.anytarget.com/?issn=0957-4484&volume=21&issue=44&date=20101105&spage=445201&title=Nanotechnology&atitle=A+versatile+nanotechnology+to+connect+individual+nano-objects+for+the+ fabrication+of+hybrid+single-electron+devices.&aulast=A++Bernand

Source Citation

Target Link (example using OpenURL syntax, similar to Source OpenURL)

Example of Resolver Menu Page

Matthew Reidsma, “jQuery for Customizing Hosted Library Services", http://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/11 (accessed July 18, 2012)

Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking

Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking

Pros:

• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers.

• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking.

 

Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking

Pros:

• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers.

• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary linking.

 Cons:

• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: debugging is very hard and does not scale.

• No systematic method exists to benchmark linking, and thus, dynamic reference linking has not improved significantly since version 0.1 of the standard.

Identifying source of problem…"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by databases (for example, A&I products)."

Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.

  

Identifying source of problem…"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by databases (for example, A&I products)."

Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.

 Defining methodology for approaching problem Researchers have indicated the need for metadata quality metrics, including: completeness; accuracy; conformance to expectations; logical consistency and coherence.

Bruce, Thomas R. and Hillmann, Diane I. 2004. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice. Ed. Diane I. Hillmann and Elaine L. Westbrooks. Chicago: American Library Association, pp. 238-256.

IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups

IOTA

• Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking;

• Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by:

– OpenURL providers.

IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups

IOTA

• Deals with issues specific to OpenURL linking;

• Seeks improvements in OpenURL elements used by:

– OpenURL providers.

KBART

• “Knowledge Bases And Related Tools”

• Deals with data issues at the KB level

• Seeks improvements in data exchange practices between:

– content providers (e.g. OpenURL providers);

– product vendors (e.g. link resolver vendors).

– subscription agents;

IOTA’s Basic Assumptions

• Results achieved through an analytical investigation of how OpenURL links work.

• Practical: Not the OpenURL standard that was addressed, but links (OpenURLs) generated by standard.

• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant improvement in linking success rate. "small changes. big improvements"

(A) Usefulness of comparing OpenURLs

• Content providers that generate OpenURLs can:– compare their OpenURLs with other providers;– make improvements to their OpenURLs.

• Institutions can:– compare OpenURL providers;– make local adjustments to OpenURL setup.

• Resolver vendors can:– compare OpenURL providers;– Change their settings for OpenURL providers:– Link resolvers;– Web-scale discovery products.

http://openurlquality.org/

Report types

• Source reports– Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database– A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)– B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)

• Element / Pattern reports– Viewing how a particular (1) element or format– A. is used across vendors– B. is used across databases

Report types

• Source reports– Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database– A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)– B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)

• Element / Pattern reports– Viewing how a particular (1) element or format– A. is used across vendors– B. is used across databases

• Vendor Quality Report?– Viewing vendors’ OpenURL quality score

(B) OpenURL Quality Index:Rating vendors by their OpenURLs

1. Core Elements:• Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting

system;• 27M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content

providers. 2. Scoring System:

• Assumption: Correlation exists between• # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & ability of

OpenURLs to link to specific content.  3. Element Weighting:

• Assigned based on their relative importance:• spage vs atitle• issn vs jtitle• doi/pmid vs date, etc.

Further investigation was needed

Further investigation was needed

• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:

Further investigation was needed

• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic

data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs

spage, etc.)

Further investigation was needed

• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic

data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs

spage, etc.)

• IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only. How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?

Further investigation was needed

• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more systematic way:• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic

data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs

spage, etc.)

• IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only. How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?• knowledge base,• resolver,• full-text provider (target).

http://www.niso.org/publications/tr/

It is impossible to give each OpenURL element a universal weight.

Therefore, an industry wide OpenURL quality index is impossible.

http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/

Adam Chandleralc28@cornell.edu

https://twitter.com/alc28

NISO Webinar • May 14, 2014

Questions?All questions will be posted with presenter answers on the NISO website following the webinar:

http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/

NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases

Thank you for joining us today. Please take a moment to fill out the brief online survey.

We look forward to hearing from you!

THANK YOU