1 / 18

Speaking the Same Language

Speaking the Same Language. Serials Standards and e-Resource Data Interactions Diane Hillmann Cornell University. Standards Evolution. Normal development trajectory—where do we fit? What current standards are relevant to our emerging needs? What are the real problems we’re trying to solve?.

silver
Download Presentation

Speaking the Same Language

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. Speaking the Same Language Serials Standards and e-ResourceData Interactions Diane HillmannCornell University

  2. Standards Evolution • Normal development trajectory—where do we fit? • What current standards are relevant to our emerging needs? • What are the real problems we’re trying to solve?

  3. Development Learning Curve • Simple ---> Complex • Monographs-----> Serials • Human ----> Machine • One-at-a-time ----> Batch • Single use ----> Re-Use

  4. MARC 21 Holdings • Represents 20 years of experience with publications • Tested approach to encoding and exchanging data • Growing installed base of publication patterns • Solid infrastructure of sharing and collaboration

  5. So why hasn’t MARC Holdings been adopted outside libraries? • “It’s too complicated--we need something simpler” • Too specific to libraries to serve the needs of others

  6. Is it too complicated? • Everything in MFHD was developed in response to real publications (we couldn’t make all that up—but publishers did!) • MARC is a communications format—not a user interface • Too complicated for who? Not for machines!

  7. Why not start new with something simpler? • “A simpler solution should accommodate 80% of the titles easily” • The 80-20 rule (Pareto’s Principle): 20% of the titles will cause 80% of the problems • Which 80% will a simpler solution handle, and who will deal with the other 20%? • Likely answer: expensive humans (and who pays for them?)

  8. Shared Goals • Efficient and timely communication of transactions (updates, changes, new info) • Emphasis on machine rather than human communication • Unambiguous referencing to all levels of publication (titles, volumes, issues, articles, etc.) • Easy re-use of data from other sources

  9. Shared Information • CONSER records contain: • Bibliographic description: title, publisher, dates, related titles, etc. (MARC Bib) • Enumeration, chronology, captions, prediction patterns, etc. (MARC Holdings) • CONSER record is a collaboratively created and maintained “Publication History” for serials • Standardized for sharing, with an existing support infrastructure

  10. A Step up with “Super Records” • A possible solution to the FRBR “work” level for serials • Gathering: • Relationships (title changes, versions, etc.) • Publication History information (what was actually published) • Creating • A basis for better user display • A template for more efficient re-use of information on serials

  11. Down to cases • What library functions can shared “Publication History” support? • Interlibrary loan (better matching of user needs to holdings at the institution and partner institution level) • Remote storage (easier decision making and access to multiple physical and digital locations) • Reference linking (correlated citations from many sources) • E-Resources management (less ambiguous user displays)

  12. The Key is Information Flow • Determination of where Publication History content should be: • Created • Updated • Managed • Determine best methods of: • Distribution to interested parties • Notification of changes

  13. A Possible Shared InfoFlow? • Librarians continue to create and maintain Publication History • Using MARC Holdings and CONSER database as basis for sharing • Determine best distribution modes for publishers and vendors • Direct access via OCLC or other means? • OAI-PMH for XML transfer to internal databases? • Other?

  14. Maintaining the InfoFlow • Shared data but separate responsibilities • Agreements defining expectations • Investment in appropriate distribution pipelines • Development of a common infrastructure that supports efficient, machine-based interoperability

  15. New title publication (Publisher) Library acquires title & first issues Publication Pattern created & distributed Vendor distributes updates using pattern model Library uses updates to maintain subscription Library catalogs Publication history record captured by vendor The Serial Serpent Library posts pattern changes for redistribution

  16. Supporting Citation

  17. Conclusion • The world as we know it favors those operating furthest to the right on the Learning Curve, with solutions: • Complex enough to do the job • Emphasizing machine interactions as much as possible • Re-using information created and maintained by others when practicable

More Related