1 / 14

Dennis Nicholson / Gordon Dunsire

SCONE, HILT, Collection Strength, and Standards . Dennis Nicholson / Gordon Dunsire. Overview. Collection strength: Uses in Scotland Conspectus, Collaboration, RCO, CAIRNS landscaping SCONE: objectivity, effort, subjects: HILT HILT: Consensus and a TeRM pilot

thetis
Download Presentation

Dennis Nicholson / Gordon Dunsire

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. SCONE, HILT, Collection Strength, and Standards  Dennis Nicholson / Gordon Dunsire

  2. Overview • Collection strength: Uses in Scotland • Conspectus, Collaboration, RCO, CAIRNS landscaping • SCONE: objectivity, effort, subjects: HILT • HILT: Consensus and a TeRM pilot • SCONE: Judgement now, automation later? • Interoperability and re-use issues • Collection strength: Uses in the DN(E)R? New projects; Lessons • Demonstrations

  3. Collection Strength in Scotland • Collaborative Collecting: • SCURL, Conspectus, CCD policies • User guidance • Research Collections Online • CAIRNS distributed catalogue and dynamic landscaping • SCONE

  4. SCONE (Selected aims) • Expand collections coverage • Identify less subjective, less labour intensive methods of measuring collection strength • Develop CCM (Collaborative Collection Management) support tools e.g. a collections and dynamic landscaping management portal: SCAMP • Map Conspectus to other subject schemes – led to HILT

  5. HILT • Investigating problems of cross-searching, browsing by subject across UK sectors and domains • Aiming at consensus on way forward • Favoured outcome an interactive terminologies route map not a HILT as such – a process for change not another thesaurus • Recognition that consensus is the key

  6. HILT • HILT Phase II would involve terminology mapping but ask: • Which is best long-term option – mapping or single scheme? • Does ‘map’ need single hierarchical scheme as a ‘spine’ • Issues: • Spine and mapping a problem for CS interoperability? Single scheme implied? • But there are other issues – and consensus remains the key – services and professionals across the domains must be convinced

  7. SCONE Interim Conclusions • Conspectus: • Subjective; labour-intensive… • SCONE Alternatives: • Brief tests? List checks? Shelf scans? Automated methods? External evaluation? Citation analysis? User based techniques (Circulation, ILL, DD statistics etc.) ? Professional judgment – key to all? • Interim conclusion: • Professional judgement constrained by SCAMP CCD/ user needs environment: agreed methods/peer review (But…)

  8. An Automated Future? • Unhelpful, inherently subjective concept? • Strong for who, for what purpose? (CURL) • Disaggregateidea to give users/staff clearer guidance? Questions include: • Count? Relative to what? Since when? Current intensity? Responsibility? Quality? Experience level? Audience level? Small but significant? Distributed strength? Subjective helpful if explicit? ‘Cohesion’? Granular characteristics? • Can the ‘strength elements’ of dynamic aggregations be dynamically generated? Is this the future of dynamic landscaping?

  9. Other Dimensions… • Granularity (as ever) complicates things: • At which level of subject granularity do we measure a collection strength (or element)? • How can we ‘telegraph’ (describe) a strength measured at one level at a higher level? • Does a strength cascade down to a subject sub-division?

  10. Issues: Interoperability; Re-use • Agree on ‘strength’ elements, how measured,described, what valid uses and limitations are; then assess or count • Local slant needed on data? ; Named collections and ‘strength’ • Assess/Count using which scheme; at what granularity level? Spine or common scheme? Consensus still the key

  11. Collection strength and the DN(E)R • Collaborative Collecting: • High-level gap identification • Deep resource sharing • User guidance • Information on strong and special collections, including access conditions • Scoping ahead/ dynamic landscaping • New projects for (some) answers: • HILT Phase II (CLD a key focus) • CLD focus in clumps/Copac project

  12. Lessons from CAIRNS, SCONE • Users increasingly use/need distributed resources, finding tools so co-operation now essential as well as desirable: • Distributed networked collections need collaborative management • Coherent distributed virtual ‘libraries’ won’t just happen – we must co-operate to manage retrieval/user environments • People interoperability a pre-requisite of technical and metadata interoperability • Co-operative Infrastructure, CoSMiC, SCAMP

  13. Demonstrations • CAIRNS service and dynamic landscaping • SCONE named collections database service • SCAMP landscaping and collections management portal

  14. Thank you! • http://scone.strath.ac.uk/ • http://scone.strath.ac.uk/service/index.cfm • http://scone.strath.ac.uk/scamp/index.html • http://hilt.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/ • d.m.nicholson@strath.ac.uk • g.dunsire@napier.ac.uk

More Related