1 / 39

NISO’s IOTA Initiative Measuring the Quality of OpenURL Links

NISO’s IOTA Initiative Measuring the Quality of OpenURL Links. NASIG Annual Conference St. Louis, MO June 2 – 5, 2011 Rafal Kasprowski , Rice University. Agenda. In the Beginning: Full-text linking and Advent of OpenURL IOTA: Created in response to OpenURL linking problems

erek
Download Presentation

NISO’s IOTA Initiative Measuring the Quality of OpenURL Links

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NISO’s IOTA InitiativeMeasuring the Quality of OpenURL Links NASIG Annual Conference St. Louis, MO June 2 – 5, 2011 RafalKasprowski, Rice University

  2. Agenda • In the Beginning: Full-text linking and Advent of OpenURL • IOTA: Created in response to OpenURL linking problems • IOTA’s analytical approach • Community-derived reports comparing quality of vendor OpenURLs • Concept of the OpenURL Quality Index • IOTA & KBART: relationship & joint initiative • Community involvement in IOTA: necessary for best outcomes

  3. Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking • Certain A&I database providers (e.g., CSA, PubMed) offered full-text linking option for a select number of content providers. • Libraries manually activated full-text linking with providers they had subscriptions with. • A&I --> Full Text

  4. 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. But... •  Once set up, the static links to full texts were accurate. • Problem source pinpointed easily: A&I --> Full Text

  5. Advent of OpenURL • Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos. • Open standard generating dynamic links at time of request. • A-Z list (e.g., e-journal, e-books): • Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings. • Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking. • Indicates provider of "appropriate copy" • A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")

  6. OpenURL: resolver, syntax, linking nodes Source Citation Target OpenURL (Source OpenURL structured similarly) http://ps4ps6lm2r.search.serialssolutions.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 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).

  7. Pros & Cons of OpenURL Pros: • KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less work for libraries and providers. • Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers exceeded proprietary linking: OpenURL scales better. Cons: • Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: more difficult to pinpoint cause of link failures. • OpenURL linking not improved significantly last 10 years. • No systematic method exists to benchmark OpenURLs.

  8. 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 addressing problem… • Recently, 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.

  9. Année philologique OpenURL Study 2008 Cornell study led by Adam Chandler* • Problem: Too often links sent from Aph did not successfully resolve to requested resource. • Objective: Examine quality of OpenURLs offered to users by Aph in order to improve the linking. Aph Study investigated: • Faulty citation metadata from source database. • Method to evaluate the OpenURLs. *Chandler, Adam. 2009. Results of L’Année philologique online OpenURL Quality Investigation: Mellon Planning Grant Final Report. http://metadata.library.cornell.edu/oq/files/200902%20lannee-mellonreport-openurlquality-final.pdf.

  10. Scoring System & Aph Study Outcomes Concept of scoring in Aph study (based on B. Hughes study)* • establish a baseline for comparison; • results to be shared with data providers; • develop a best practice. Problem analysis in Aph study limited to: • source link • presence/absence of citation metadata elements Results: • OpenURL quality model: compares elements in Aph OpenURLs to those of other providers. • No scoring was achieved for Aph, but model is first step towards scoring system. *Hughes, Baden. 2004. Metadata Quality Evaluation: Experience from the Open Language Archives Community. In Digital Libraries: International Collaboration and Cross-Fertilization. Ed. Zhaoneng Chen et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 320-329.

  11. Creation of IOTA NISO: • Accepts proposal to take Aph Study to wider community. • New OpenURL quality metrics initiative formed in Jan. 2011. • Branded as: Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics. Basic Assumptions: • Results are achieved through an analytical investigation of how OpenURL links work. • Practical Goal: Not the OpenURL standard is addressed, but the links (OpenURLs) generated by standard. • Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant improvement in linking success rate. • Motto: "small changes. big improvements"

  12. IOTA Desired Outcomes • Produce qualitative reports that will help OpenURL providers quickly compare their OpenURL quality to that of their peers. • Develop community-recognized index for measuring the quality of OpenURL links generated by content providers. • Method: • fair; • transparent; • scalable across all OpenURLs and their providers.

  13. How is comparing OpenURLs useful? • Content providers generating OpenURLs can: • compare their OpenURLs with other providers; • make improvements to their OpenURLs. • Institutions can: • compare OpenURL providers; • make local adjustments to OpenURL setup. • Link resolver vendors can: • compare OpenURL providers; • change their OpenURL provider settings: • Link resolvers; • Web-scale discovery products.

  14. 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

  15. Running reports

  16. Reports: Log file providers

  17. Report: source (vendor or database)

  18. Report: source = vendor

  19. Report: element, source = vendor

  20. Report: pattern, source = vendor

  21. Report: source = database

  22. Report: element, source = database

  23. Report: pattern, source = database

  24. Report: element and pattern frequency

  25. Report: element & pattern frequency:Vendor option

  26. Report: element/pattern frequency:Choosing Metric

  27. Report: element/pattern by vendor

  28. Report: element & pattern frequency:Database option

  29. Report: element/pattern by database

  30. Reporting System: improvements underway • Consolidating variant instances of databases and vendors if the same; • Separating article-like requests from book-like requests • Either/Or situation: most resources do not offer both formats • Once separation is completed, users will be given corresponding options to select OpenURL data by format: ARTICLE or BOOK • These improvements will also benefit the accuracy of the OpenURL scoring system.

  31. OpenURL Quality Index: initial version 1. Core elements: • Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting system; • 13M OpenURLs already obtained from libraries content providers. 2. Scoring system based on assumption: • Correlation exists between • # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & • ability of OpenURLs to link to specific content. 3.  Weighting assigned to core elements: • Based on relative importance • spage vs atitle • issn vs jtitle • doi/pmid vs date, etc.

  32. OpenURL Quality Index: vendor rating

  33. Work in Progress • Element weighting still in progress: • E.g., importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage). • Currently, IOTA focuses on OpenURLs from citation sources only. OpenURL quality is also influenced by: • knowledge base, • resolver, • full-text provider (target). • High "completeness" score of OpenURLs not always indicative of "success" in linking to full texts • Combination of multiple indexes along linking nodes may provide more complete picture.

  34. IOTA & KBART: 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.

  35. IOTA & KBART: related through OpenURL • IOTA node: • analyzing data sent from OpenURL source to link resolver. • KBART node: • creating formatting best practices for data sent from content providers to knowledge base (and link resolver) vendors.

  36. KBART-IOTA joint initiative • KBART-IOTA node: • Exploring together the third source of failures: • link-to (or target) syntax and behavior which couples link resolvers to content providers • Collaboration begun in March 2011 is meant to address OpenURL quality in a broader context.

  37. How can I get involved? If you are an OpenURL provider: • Contribute data to IOTA • Review the IOTA data • This data is meant to help you make improvements in your OpenURLlinking If you are a librarian: • Contribute data to IOTA • Spread the word to vendors about IOTA OpenURL data contact: • Adam Chandler, alc28@cornell.edu

  38. IOTA Web Presence

  39. Questions? • http://openurlquality.niso.org • http://www.niso.org/workrooms/openurlquality • @nisoiota on twitter Rafal Kasprowski Electronic Resources Librarian Rice University, Fondren Library MS 44 Houston, TX 77005 rk11@rice.edu http://www.slideshare.net/rkaspro

More Related