1 / 11

Z39.50 and UK HE Digital/Electronic Libraries

Z39.50 and UK HE Digital/Electronic Libraries. Matthew J. Dovey Oxford University ZIG – Washington December 2000. DigitalElectronic Library Activities in the UK (H.E.). Primarily funded by the JISC eLib Phases 1 & 2 eLib Phase 3 RDN DNER. eLib Phases 1 & 2. Mid 1990’s

joelle
Download Presentation

Z39.50 and UK HE Digital/Electronic Libraries

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. Z39.50 and UK HE Digital/Electronic Libraries Matthew J. Dovey Oxford University ZIG – Washington December 2000

  2. Digital\Electronic Library Activities in the UK (H.E.) • Primarily funded by the JISC • eLib Phases 1 & 2 • eLib Phase 3 • RDN • DNER

  3. eLib Phases 1 & 2 • Mid 1990’s • Formation of information sources/services • MODELS workshops (UKOLN) began to consider integration issues

  4. eLib Phase 3 • Consolidation effort • Hybrid Libraries • integrating heterogeneous electronic sources • integrating electronic and traditional resources • “Clumps” • Virtual Union Catalogues • ILL secondary • Long Term Preservation

  5. Hybrid Libraries • Builder • Chose to work with library vendor to develop API rather than use Z39.50 • Existing Z39.50 interface poor • Needed to integrate library services into their other internet enable services so looking for components to drop into web server (IIS) • To high learning curve • Vendor more amenable to developing bespoke API than improving Z39.50

  6. Hybrid Libraries • MALIBU • Heterogeneous search engine • Most information sources are available as web services, but not Z39.50 enabled • Commercial information providers -no interest in offering Z39.50 • Non-commercial – no resources for consultancy or high-powered programming, no wish to deploy a replacement or parallel system • Built on a stateless agent ontology model • Web “screen-scraping” agents • Z39.50 agents – primarily library catalogues only • Search base on common denominator (free text)

  7. Hybrid Libraries • Generic Issues • Few Z39.50 sources (mainly just libraries) • Overhead not justified by benefits • Poor implementations • Some features not applicable to web gateway UI • State • Bib-1 abstraction (Web users used to free-text query) • Query whether users want to cross search • Rutger’s Study – ACM DL99 • Future DNER Evaluation work • Few Desktop tools • No browser incorporation • Now is in major bibliography packages

  8. Clumps • Problems Encountered • Local IT ignorance • Library System Vendor Ignorance • Incorrect implementations • Limited implementations • Implementation variation (hence Bath Profile) • Unrealistic expectations

  9. RDN • Resource Discovery Network • 6(?) Subject Oriented Gateways of quality internet resources • Central Searching - ROADS based on whois++ • Lightweight, easier to implement • Does the required job without other baggage • Offers mechanisms for forward knowledge

  10. DNER • Distributed Network for Electronic Resources • Goal to provide an integrated environment for the UK HE Information services • Need a protocol for this brokering • Candidates: • Z39.50 • Whois++ • DASL • DIENST

  11. DNER • Arguments for Z39.50 as backbone • No suitable alternatives yet • Arguments against • Few implementations amongst sources • Perceived broken (poor implementations) • Heavy weight and expensive (are its strength’s relevant) • Too heavily library as oppose to other communities or IR/free-text • Not easy to plug in (often need parallel system) • Perceived difficult to integrate with current/forthcoming internet/WWW technologies. • Maybe be replaced by such a internet/WWW technology

More Related