Update on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative

1. NISO Virtual Conference: Web-Scale Discovery Services: Transforming Access to Library Resources Update on the NISOOpen Discovery Initiative Marshall Breeding http://www.librarytechnology.org/ http://twitter.com/mbreeding November 20, 2013

2. Index-based Discovery ILS Data (2009- present) Digital Collections Search: Web Site Content Institutional Repositories Aggregated Content packages Search Results Consolidated Index Open Access … E-Journals CustomerProfile Usage-generatedData Reference Sources Pre-built harvesting and indexing

3. Bento Box Discovery Model Aggregated Content packages Search: Open Access ILS Data VuFind / Blacklight E-Journals Consolidated Index Search Results Web Site Content Digital Collections API Central index & search functionality Institutional Repositories

4. Web-scale searchproblem ILS Data Digital Collections Search: Web Site Content Institutional Repositories Consolidated Index Aggregated Content packages Search Results … E-Journals Pre-built harvesting and indexing ??? Non Participating Content Sources Problem in how to deal with resources not provided to ingest into consolidated index

5. Discovery Concerns • 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

6. Heterogeneous Representations • Content objects represented by • MARC Records for books and journal titles • Citation data for articles • Full text for articles • Full text for books • Abstracts and Indexing products • Other metadata or enrichment

7. Discovery index issues • Citations or structured metadata provide key data to power search & retrieval and faceted navigation • Indexing full-text of content amplifies access • Important to understand what is indexed • Currency, dates covered, full-text or citation • Many other factors

8. Library Perspective • Strategic investments in subscriptions • Strategic investments in Discovery Solutions to provide access to their collections • 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 coverage and performance of competing index-based discovery products

9. Collection Coverage? To work effectively, discovery services need to cover comprehensively the body of content represented in library collections Why do some content providers notparticipate? How are A&I resources represented? 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?

10. 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

11. Some Key Areas for Publishers • Expose content appropriately • Trust that access to material will be controlled consistent with subscription terms • “Fair” Linking • Materials not disadvantaged or underrepresented in library discovery implementations • Usage reporting

12. ODI context Facilitate a healthy ecosystem among discovery service providers, libraries and content providers

13. 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

14. 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)

15. ODI Timeline

16. Balance of Constituents Marshall Breeding, Vanderbilt UniversityJamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard University Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon Lucy Harrison, College Center for Library Automation (D2D liaison/observer) Michele Newberry Lettie Conrad, SAGE PublicationsRoger Schonfeld, ITHAKA/JSTOR/PorticoJeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Linda Beebe, American Psychological AssocAaron Wood, Alexander Street Press Jenny Walker, Ex Libris GroupJohn Law, Serials SolutionsMichael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC) Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)

17. 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.

18. 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 Adoption

20. ODI Stakeholder Survey • Collected data from Sept 11 thru Oct 4, 2012 • Each subgroup developed questions pertinent to it area of concern

21. Survey Responses • 782 Librarians • 74 Publishers • 15 Discovery Services • 871 Total

22. 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

23. Librarian’s preferred Use statistics • Total Number of Searches • List of search query terms • Referring URLs

24. 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%

25. 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

26. ODO Survey Report • Issued January 2013 • 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

27. ODI Final Report • Issued for public Comment • Comment period closed November 18, 2013

28. Report Topics • Introduction • In scope / out of scope • Terms and definitions • Evolution of Discovery • Related initiatives • Recommendations

29. General Recommendations • Create oversight group • Actions for content providers and discovery service creators to assert conformance

30. Recommendations for Content Providers • Content providers should make items available to discovery service providers. • Basic: Citations: specific metadata elements • Enhanced: additional metadata + Full-text • Provide to Libraries: disclosure of participation in discovery services

31. Recommendationsfor Discovery Service Creators • Disclosure of content indexed • Specific metadata fields • Fair / non-biased linking • Mechanisms for libraries to choose versions preferred for linking • Annual statement regarding neutrality of linking or relevance • Provide links to A&I services when applicable • Usage statistics to Publishers • Searches • Result clicks • Click-throughs • Link source identification

32. Report Highlights • What is in and out of Scope • Focus on content available to be indexed • Quantity and form of content (citations / fulltext) • Metadata fields contributed • Role of A&I products • Controlled Vocabularies • Out of Scope • Relevancy algorithms • User Interface issues • APIs exposed • Fair linking

33. Technical recommendations • Transfer of data from content providers to discovery service creators • Make use of existing standards and protocols when possible

34. Current work Next Steps • Review comments received • Chairs + Workgroup members • Make any needed revisions • Submit for final approval by NISO D2D

35. 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