binkley-access-2007 by shuifanglj


									Searching the OPAC:
  The State of Play

                        Peter Binkley

                        Access 2007
Areas of Functionality
             Clumping
             Ordering
             Exploiting
             Contributing
             Deploying
 (1999)

                                screenshot: Peter Morville
                      History 1
   Andrew Pace: “Making minor changes t
    library catalog systems is like putting lipstick
    on a pig.” (LITA forum, Sept. 2005)
   NCSU's Endeca OPAC (Jan. 2006)
   WPOPAC (now called Scriblio; Casey
    Bisson, Feb. 2006)
   Karen Schneider, “How OPACs Suck, parts
    1-3) (Mar.-May 2006)
   LibraryThing; XC (May 2006)
                     History 2

   ILS vendors follow suit, led by Ex Libris with
    Primo (May 2006); Encore (III); EPS/Rooms
   NGC4LIB listserv (June 2006)
   Evergreen (Georgia PINES; Sept. 2006)
                       History 3
   Open source alternatives, notably Solr-based
       Casey Durfee, "Open Source Endeca in 250
        Lines or Less" (Code4Lib, Mar. 2007)
       Erik Hatcher / Bess Sadler, BlackLight (UVA,
        Apr. 2007)
       Andrew Nagy, VUFind (July. 2007)
                    Clumping 1
   Bringing like together with like, for navigation,
    comparison and selection
   Notably by faceting on metadata fields
   But also by means of tags and other extra-
   Examples:
       NCSU (Endeca)
       BlackLight
       Summa
                     Clumping 2
   Beyond faceting: automated FRBRizing
   On the fly, based on online services
       xISBN (OCLC) (example)
       thingISBN (LibraryThing)
   Or systematically, based on algorithms
    applied to metadata
       OCLC Office of Research
   Lists of facets can be processed into visual
    presentations as well as textual
   Literal: geographical subject headings
       Example: Peel Project
   Figurative: abstract visualizations of various
    types, e.g. Aquabrowser
                       Ordering 1
   Traditional OPACs default to last-in first-out
   NextGen OPACs provide relevance ranked
   But... does TF/IDF work for bib records?

   Examples
       U of Alberta
       Vanderbilt (Primo test)
                               Ordering 2
    Problem of relevance ranking: Libraries
     Australia solution (Dellitt and Boston 2007)
1.     Matches in the title, author and subject fields, and those fields which describe
    the format, nature or form of the item, are more important than general matches
    within the record.
2.     Matches in multiples of the above fields are more important than matches in
    just one of those fields.
3.     Where there is one or more query terms, an exact match of the term (where
    what was typed in to the query box is exactly the same as what is in a field in the
    record) is much more important than a phrase match (where what was typed in
    to the query box matches exactly a part of what is in a field in the record), which
    is more important than a word match (where all the terms in a query box appear
    in the field, but not necessarily next to each other).

    Example: Libraries Australia
   Web 1.0 was the human-readable web; Web
    2.0 is the machine-readable web
   Make bibliographic metadata actionable
   Examples
       Export citations to e.g. RefWorks
       unAPI: embedded link to raw metadata
       COinS: embedded “headless” OpenURL
   Tools: e.g. Firefox extensions
       LibX: toolbar provides customized links
       Zotero: citation manager
   “User-generated content”
   Especially tags
       Example: Tamworth, NH (Scriblio)
   LibraryThing for Libraries: import tags and
       Example: Danbury, CT
   LibraryBiblioCommons approach (webcast):
       the fully social OPAC
       aggregated as broadly as possible
   An added dimension to tagging: personal
    metadata is a potential source of facets,
   Networks of trust
   OPAC is already an authenticated
    environment, but must interlock with other
    identity systems, e.g. courseware
   Shibboleth? OpenID?
   New watchword: “Place our resources where
    our users live.”
   I.E. courseware, Facebook, browser plugins
    (e.g. LibX), etc., VRE
   Interfaces: SRU, OpenSearch allow mashups
    – even OAI-PMH?
   Shall we pursue them as far as Second Life?
           Issues and Obstacles
   Planning, determining specifications
   Metadata cleanup
   Back end processes
            Planning and Specifying
   NCSU example: eight months
   With one technical librarian, supported by a
    team and by the vendor (Anstelman, Lynema, Pace,
   Issues of scope: what goes in? Is this “only”
    a catalogue, or something else?

   Example:
        WorldCat Local
                Metadata Cleanup
   Faceting exposes (bad) metadata
       Example: BlackLight
   Do you know how clean your data is?
           Back End Processes

   Extracting bibliographic and holdings records
   Enhancing them with external metadata
   Processing and Indexing
   Maintaining synchronization in real time
    (NCSU: 1.7 million records, updated nightly;
    BlackLight: 3.8 million, similar)
   Circulation status... (NCSU: nightly)
            Services on the Grid
   Alternative approach: scoped view of union
   e.g. WorldCat Local, or Talis Library Platform
   Or Google?
   Advantage: broader aggregation of content
   Disadvantage: complexity of including local
    holdings-level metadata, integration with
    local systems
               Special Collections

   Benefits of providing access to collections
    with special needs
       e.g. Umlaut: special handling of technical reports
       e.g. Blacklight: faceting of musical instruments
   Escape from one-size-fits-all approach of
   Users do not like our interfaces
   They do not use our advanced search
   They do not get the full benefit from our
   We will only be left further and further behind
   What if we solve the discovery problem for
    OPAC-contents, but it doesn't work for the
    rest of our users' citation-space?
   Integration with metasearch? OpenURL
    resolvers? (Umlaut)
   The technological
    opportunities change
   The service
    imperatives do not
   Traditional core
    values and methods
    of librarianship will
    see us through
Searching the OPAC:
  The State of Play

                        Peter Binkley

                        Access 2007

To top