Extending Access To Information Resource Discovery Service

1. Extending Access To InformationResource Discovery Service William E. Moen, Ph.D.<wemoen@unt.edu> Kathleen R. Murray, Ph.D. <krm0028@unt.edu> School of Library and Information Sciences Texas Center for Digital Knowledge University of North Texas Presentation to University of Texas at Arlington Library Staff, May 30, 2003

2. The problem

3. A solution

4. Finding / exposing • Finding: Users can find only what’s been exposed • Exposing: How content is exposed determines how and if user can find it • Goal: Allow easy discovery of and access to many information resources • Strategy: Implement a single search interface to support resource discovery • Tactic: Use standards and develop agreements for exposing and finding leading to interoperable systems and data

5. Resource discovery • Discovering, identifying, and selecting useful resources • Extends the reach and range of user access: • Organizational, collections, and format boundaries • Search and retrieval are core • Single database searching • Broadcast searching across similar databases • Broadcast searching across different databases

6. Resource discovery

7. Exposing / finding #1

8. Exposing / finding #2

9. Exposing / finding #3

10. Exposing / finding #4

11. Library of Texas A Virtual Library Reaching Across Boundaries to Extend Access to A Range of Information Resources • Collection Boundaries • Organizational Boundaries • Format Boundaries

12. ZLOT project • Z Implementation Component of the Library of Texas (ZLOT) • Develop standards-based approach for the virtual library • <http://www.unt.edu/zlot> • Project Focus • Identify requirements for resource discovery across library catalogs and online databases • Demonstrate feasibility and utility of resource discovery tools • Phase 1 – 2002: Design and specifications • Phase 2 – 2003: Initial implementation

13. Virtual library facets • Collections of resources – local and distributed • Collaborative services and activities • Services for users • Services for librarians • Tools that assist users in networked information resource discovery and access • A management structure that allocates resources, determines policies, agrees on standards, etc.

14. Characterizing the VL • An environment for provision of • Services • Resources • Not a digital library • Not all resources available are in digital/electronic form • An evolving product that responds to • Users’ needs • Available resources • Current and emerging technologies

15. Service-centricvirtual library Management User Groups SERVICES Technology Resources

16. Services Layer Resource Sharing Patron Account Library Information Authorization Reference Personalization Financial Education Resource Discovery Standard Information Interchange Among Services

17. Functional requirements for LOT Resource Discovery Service • Key Players • Advisory Group • Focus Groups • Requirements • Search and Retrieval Interface • Search Interface • Retrieval Interface • Virtual Catalog • TexShare Databases Resource Discovery Service Search & Retrieval Interface TexShare Data bases Virtual Catalog

18. Resource Discovery:Functional View Information Retrieval Systems Content or Resource Collections LOT Search & Retrieval Interface Middleware • TexShare Databases • Electronic Archive of Government Information • Statewide Virtual Catalog • Broadcast Searching • Similar Resources • Dissimilar Resources • Common Retrieval Display • Translates Searches • Formats Retrievals • Interacts with Multiple IR Systems

19. Resource Discovery:Operational View Content Standards-basedSearch & RetrievalProtocols Content Content OAIRepository Gateway Common Interface Content Content Content Proprietary or Non-standardSearch & Retrieval Protocols Content Content

20. Benefits of LOT Resource Discovery Service • Ease of searching: • Common interface for simple and advanced searching • Training needs are reduced • Local library is present • Customizable interface to include local library • Tools to help users • Select resources based on location, type, etc. • Indications of availability and “how to get” • Utilization of valuable resources • Increased use of TexShare databases • Easier access to Texas libraries’ resources

21. Z39.50 and resource discovery • Information Retrieval (Z39.50): Application Service Definition and Protocol Specification • Allows • Searching of databases on one or more systems • Retrieval of records from those system • Without user having detailed knowledge of each system • Provides • Search and retrieval of bibliographic and non-bibliographic resources • Technical foundation for information access and resource sharing

22. Z39.50 model ofinformation retrieval

23. How is Z39.50 being used? • To provide a common way to interact with databases • Serving up bibliographic records from online catalogs • Serving up records from commercial databases • Using a single interface to search databases • Information environments • Libraries • Commercial database providers • Government information locators (e.g., TRAIL) • Applications • Bibliographic citation software (e.g., Procite, EndNote) • Portals • Virtual libraries • Colorado, Illinois, Texas

27. Z39.50 client use in Texas libraries Source: ZLOT Technology Inventory and Assessment Survey, 2002

28. Z39.50 servers in Texas N=24

29. Z39.50 and virtual catalogs

30. Exposing / finding #2

31. OCLC’s WorldCat orvirtual catalog • Motivation • Focus group questions • Understanding of alternatives for resource disc. • Activities • Determine • public library holdings data • academic library holdings data • Texas holdings represented in OCLC’s WorldCat • Analyze and compare

32. Academic library holdings Academic library holdings: 33,458,040 (164 libraries) Holdings represented in WorldCat: 27,377,445 (81.8%)

33. Public library holdings Public library holdings: 27,466,347(552 libraries) Holdings represented in WorldCat: 7,030,485 (25.6%)

34. Are there alternatives to Z39.50? • It depends… what application/service do you want? • And there are tradeoffs… what costs are incurred? • Possible alternatives • Have users search individual databases through native interfaces – web interfaces make this a bit easier • Build large repositories of metadata (e.g., OAI) • Use customized translators and scripts (e.g. WebFeat) • Wait for new protocols and technologies (e.g., XML standards such as XML Query, XPath, etc.)

35. LOT RDS opportunities for UTA • Participate as search target for RDS • Pilot Uplift Program • Express interest at: http://zeda.lis.unt.edu/zlot_wa5/client.php • Participate as pilot for RDS application • Provide your users custom single search interface to: • Texas library catalogs • TexShare databases • Locally licensed databases • Others