1 / 32

WHY LIBRARIES WILL CARE HOW LINKING WORKS...

WHY LIBRARIES WILL CARE HOW LINKING WORKS. November, 2000. WHAT WE ALL WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. Any old system. Citation. Citation. LINK. CLICK. LINK. MAGIC. Cited Article. HOW DOI PERFORMS “MAGIC”. Any old system. Step 1. Citation. Search response. DOI. CLICK. Step 2. DOI.

shea-mcconnell
Download Presentation

WHY LIBRARIES WILL CARE HOW LINKING WORKS...

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. WHY LIBRARIES WILL CARE HOW LINKING WORKS... November, 2000

  2. WHAT WE ALL WANT TO ACCOMPLISH Any old system Citation Citation LINK CLICK LINK MAGIC Cited Article

  3. HOW DOI PERFORMS “MAGIC” Any old system Step 1 Citation Search response DOI CLICK Step 2 DOI DOI Resolver URL Repository URL Step 3 Cited article Article

  4. BUT -- WHAT IF MORE THAN 1 COPY EXISTS? • Elsevier journals, for example, are on-line at: • Elsevier ScienceDirect • OhioLink • University of Toronto

  5. WHICH URL? DOI Handle Server URL? Sciencedirect.com? Ohiolink.edu? Utoronto.ca?

  6. A PROBLEM DOI today cannot resolve to more than 1 copy

  7. A BAD THING…. Ohio State User ACM ARTICLE Citation DOI (to Elsevier) CLICK ELSEVIER (or: “$25, please”) OhioLink Cited article

  8. WHY MULTIPLE COPIES • “Local loading” • A number of institutions are already loading e-journals for their local populations • OhioLink, Toronto, University of Illinois... • As local digital library infrastructures (and archiving projects??) grow, this may become more common

  9. WHY MULTIPLE COPIES • Aggregators • Most electronic journal access in many institutions today is through aggregators • OCLC EJO, EBSCO, Ovid, IAC, Bell & Howell • Smaller publishers, publishers outside of STM, and smaller libraries rely much more on aggregators than direct access through publisher sites

  10. WHY MULTIPLE COPIES • Mirror sites • Common for reasons of performance, redundancy, and telecommunications costs • Which mirror (address) you should use can depend on “where” you are on the net • Some publishers now negotiating for institutions to mount mirror systems for archiving (eg., APS mirrors at Cornell and Library of Congress)

  11. WHY MULTIPLE COPIES • E-print servers • A lot of current interest in building subject-specific e-print collections (which include published articles) • LANL, PubMedCentral, CDL, Cornell... • And some interest in institution-specific services (D-Space at MIT) • Relationship to formal publications certain to be complex and overlapping

  12. WHY MULTIPLE COPIES • Preservation archives • Institutional failure is as great a danger as technological failure • Multiple copies held by different parties is the best protection • May be no linkage problem if the archive is “dark”, but… • How “safe” are unused copies? • Much current discussion of “dim” (low functionality) full service archives for local use

  13. THE APPROPRIATE COPY • When more than 1 copy exists, specific populations frequently have the right to access specific copies • Some systems today can do this tailored linking (ISI, for instance) • But... it must be done by EVERY system from which links can come • Can we expect every citation source to do this???

  14. LOCALIZATION (THE INSIGHT OF SFX) • In a world of restricted access and complex business arrangements, what options a user is given and what information s/he is offered is frequently a local question • SFX demonstrates there are any number of links that an institution might choose to offer a user from a given citation • Appropriate electronic copy is only the most immediate issue….

  15. Paper is also a copy • Electronic links are great, but users should also know there is local hard copy available

  16. ANOTHER BAD THING…. Harvard User Any old system ARTICLE Search response Citation DOI (to Elsevier) CLICK ELSEVIER (or: “$25, please”) but there is a free paper copy next door….

  17. Proxy problem • To provide access from off-campus, many libraries now provide proxy servers • With most proxies, if you are not coming from a proxied resource, a link will not be proxied

  18. YET ANOTHER BAD THING…. Off-campus User PubMed ARTICLE Search response Citation DOI (to Elsevier) CLICK ELSEVIER Cited article (or: “$25, please”) Local Proxy

  19. DIGITAL LIBRARIES OF OLD • Closed systems • A designer at the top • Predictable players and parts • Control of both ends of a relationship • Task was to build a system

  20. NOW WE KNOW • Open, open, open • No one designer -- evolves organically • Unpredictable players and parts • Nobody is in control • Task is integration of independent parts

  21. WILL THE ENVIRONMENT BE CONSTRAINED? • A generalized link-from-anywhere-to- anywhere solution will allow the e-journal environment to evolve naturally • We are in a period of much necessary experimentation • Who are the players? • What are their roles? • How many options will users and libraries have?

  22. DOI INFRASTRUCTURE FEELS QUITE CONSTRAINING TODAY (A HOT-LINKED DOI GOES ONLY 1 PLACE…) BUT CHANGING THIS WILL NOT BE EASY!

  23. A CURIOUSITY (or, is something missing?) The primary unit in the DOI technical architecture is article but…. the primary unit of business for journals is title + year

  24. SUMMARY 1. Multiple copies will exist, and if nothing is done we are going to have a bit of a MESS!

  25. SUMMARY 2. Assuming a single point of resolution is too constraining at a time of rapid evolution and massive uncertainty about roles and players!

  26. SUMMARY 3. The infrastructure must be built to support complexity, localization,and a variety of heterogeneous services and solutions!

  27. CROSSREF/DLF LINKING PROTOTYPE • Group of research libraries coordinated by DLF approached CrossRef on the “appropriate copy” issue • Series of discussions between publishers, DOI, CrossRef, libraries, service providers, NISO ensued • Prototype to test “localization” of linking over next 6+ months

  28. REMEMBER HOW DOI PERFORMS “MAGIC” Any old system Step 1 Citation Search response DOI CLICK Step 2 DOI DOI Resolver URL Repository URL Step 3 Cited article Article

  29. PROTOTYPE ARCHETECTURE Any old system Step 1 Citation Search response DOI CLICK Step 2 DOI DOI SERVER: Does user have localization? N DOI Resolver Y LOCALIZATION SERVICE (at library or service provider)

  30. LOCALIZATION • DOI resolution is optionally redirected to a server specific to a population • Localization server decides what response a user should get for this DOI • Refer to electronic copy from publisher or alternate service (local, aggregator, etc.) • Information about paper copy in collection • etc., etc. • Resolution is based on local collection and business arrangements

More Related