Pathway to the Future:Library Bibliographic Services

for the 21st Century

Amy Kautzman UCBPatti Martin CDL

University of California Overview

• 10 Campuses• 10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, home

grown)• Melvyl (UC union catalog)• Shared Cataloging Program

A Wake-Up Call

“Our users expect simplicity and immediate reward and Amazon, Google, and iTunes are the standards against which we are judged.”

Things are not ok

“The current Library catalog is poorly designed for the tasks of finding, discovering, and selecting the growing set of resources available in our libraries …”

“We offer a fragmented set of systems to search for published information …”

Increased recognition that:

• Bibliographic systems are the foundation of library services

• Metadata is valuable and strategic

• Libraries are filled with undiscoverable yet extremely valuable material

• Examples to learn from: OCLC WorldCat, RedLightGreen, NCSU’s new catalog, etc.

The Time is Right “The combined effect of these pressures

suggests that the time has come to thoroughly review library bibliographic services and practices, workflows, and technologies”

UC University Librarians appoint Bibliographic Services Task Force, April 2005

The Charge (simplified and shortened)

• Inventory the middleware, workflow and processes involved

• Identify the problems that need to be solved• Develop a vision and design principles for a new

bibliographic services environment• Identify potential actions • Deliver a report with recommendations and

priorities

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

In the (almost) Beginning

Thanks to MARC01291nam 22002774a 4500 00113089236 00520040304134833.0 008030211s2004 enk b001 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 200408200 $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

The Library ILS

Ar chi val Syst ems

Ar chi val Ar chi val Syst emsSyst ems

El ect r oni cr esear chdat abases

El ect r oni cEl ect r oni cr esear chr esear chdat abasesdat abases

I nst i t ut i onal Reposi t or i esI nst i t ut i onal I nst i t ut i onal Reposi t or i esReposi t or i es

Pat hfi nder sPat hfi nder sPat hfi nder sDi gi t alLi br ar y

Col l ect i ons

Di gi t alDi gi t alLi br ar yLi br ar y

Col l ect i onsCol l ect i ons

Non-ILS Metadata Systems

Silos Everywhere!

Silos Everywhere!

Course Management Systems

Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

Enhancing Search and Retrieval• Provide users with direct access to item• Provide recommender features• Support customization/personalization• Offer alternative actions for failed

searches– Spelling– Suggestions for no results

Cont.• Offer better navigation of large sets of

research results• Deliver bibliographic services where the

users are– Course management systems, campus

portals– Expose metadata to search engines

• Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text

And now, looking behind the curtain …

Rearchitecting the OPAC• Create a single catalog interface for all UC• Support searching across the entire

bibliographic space

Adopting New Cataloging Practices

• Rearchitect cataloging workflow• Select the appropriate metadata scheme• Manually enrich metadata in important

areas• Automate metadata creation

Resuscitate Metadata

• Metadata matters• Make metadata work harder• Avoid complexity that doesn’t add value• Add more metadata to support better

services

Metadata is more than MARC

• MARC, Dublin Core, VRA Core, METS• TOCs, book reviews, abstracts• User comments, folksonomies, added

information• Data mining of full text, records of use,

relationships

Make Metadata Work Together

ONIX & MARC

DUBLIN CORE & VRA

MARC & User Tags

Work Smarter

• Adopt metadata created elsewhere• Create and maintain records in one place• Move from shared cataloging to

collaborative cataloging• Focus on being good enough instead of

perfect• Generate more management information

The Report Strikes a Chord• Strong interest within the University of

California

• Immediate community reaction– Report hit the blogs– Interviews by the Library press– Invitations to present at conferences– Guest lectures at library schools

Lita Blog: January 26 2006 KG Schneider

“If there is one meta-trend I am seeing right now, it is this: librarians are getting frisky. We’re talking back, questioning authority, and in some cases taking names and kicking booty, as Andrew Pace did recently with the NCSU catalog (Andrew, can we call your OPAC “Miss Piggy”?) and as the UC system did with its must-read, put-this-under-your-pillow, OMG-this-is-hot BSTF Report.

Why the Buzz?

Report gives voice to some popular opinions

– Our services must be user driven– Our services need to be delivered where the

users are– 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 gives voice to some 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

Why the buzz?

Report challenges current practices

– Our catalogs are poorly designed– Our bibliographic systems are fragmented– Our bibliographic data dispersed– Our workflows are cumbersome– Work is duplicated

What Next? Campuses and UC committee feedback

was due by March 31, 2006

Four questions– Which 3-5 recommendations are most

important?– Which specific recommendations should we

do first?– Are there any recommendations to add?– Are there any recommendations we should

NOT pursue?

Preliminary UC Feedback:Popular recommendations

I. Enhancing Search and Retrieval– 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

Preliminary UC Feedback:Popular recommendations

II. Re-architecting the OPAC– II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC

– II.2 Search across the entire info space

III. Adopting New Cataloging Practices– III.1 Re-architect cataloging workflow

Preliminary UC Feedback: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 urgent or we’re doomed

– 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

Surprises? Not really

Recommendations are difficult to discuss in the abstract

– 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

– Many are skeptical about the feasibility of accomplishing the recommendations

Surprises? Not really People have trouble moving beyond their

expectations of current systems

– Many look at the examples that illustrate concepts and think the change will look the same

– Many assume we will implement with the same technology and/or the same organization

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.”

Next Steps:Moving from vision to decision

Apr 06 - Analyze feedback and provide report to the University Librarians

Jun 06 - University Librarians decide on actions

Jul 06 - Task Force reconvenes to develop

action plans

http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf