Pathway to the Future: Library Bibliographic Services for the 21 st Century

1. Pathway to the Future:Library Bibliographic Services for the 21st Century Amy Kautzman UCB Terry Ryan UCLA

2. University of California Overview • 10 Campuses • 10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, etc.) • Melvyl (UC union catalog) • SCP + merge algorithm • Ex Libris ERMS + SFX • Digital repositories

3. Bibliographic Services Task Force • John Riemer, (Chair, UCLA) Head, Cataloging and Metadata Center • Luc Declerck (UCSD) Associate Univ. Librarian, Technology and Technical Services • Amy Kautzman (UCB) Head of Research and Collections: Doe/Moffitt Libraries • Patti Martin (CDL) Bibliographic Services Manager • Terry Ryan (UCLA) Associate University Librarian for the UCLA Electronic Library

4. BSTF Charge • Inventory the end-user services supported by our biblio. processing data. Articulate the problems that need to be solved. • Develop a vision and design principles. • Analyze opportunities and costs and benefits. • Deliver a report and develop an implementation road map.

5. Design Principles • Work Smarter/Rationalize Workflow and Data Flow • Resuscitate Metadata • Provide User-Centered Search Services • Get Users to the Content • Rethink System Architecture to Focus on Services, not Systems • Support Continuous Assessment & Improvement

6. In the (almost) Beginning

7. Thanks to MARC 01291nam 22002774a 4500 00113089236 00520040304134833.0 008030211s2004 enk b 001 0 eng 010 $a 2003042916 020 $a 0195161998 (alk. paper) 035 $a (Sirsi) i0195161998 040 $a DLC $c DLC $d DLC $d OrLoB-B 042 $a pcc 049 $x jek 05000 $a BS651 $b .S54 2004 08200 $a 213 $2 21 1001  $a Shanks, Niall, $d 1959- 24510 $a God, the devil, and Darwin : $b a critique of intelligent design theory / $c Niall Shanks. 260 $a Oxford ; $a New York : $b Oxford University Press, $c 2004. 300 $a xiii, 273 p. ; $c 22 cm. 504 $a Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-268) and index. 50500 $t Foreword / $r Richard Dawkins -- $t Introduction: The Many Designs of the Intelligent Design Movement -- $g 1. $t The Evolution of Intelligent Design Arguments -- $g 2. $t Darwin and the Illusion of Intelligent Design -- $g 3. $t Thermodynamics and the Origins of Order -- $g 4. $t Science and the Supernatural -- $g 5. $t The Biochemical Case for Intelligent Design -- $g 6. $t The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design -- $t Conclusion: Intelligent Designs on Society. 596 $a 1

8. The Library ILS

12. Course Management Systems

17. Libraries Need Disparate Metadata to Work Together ONIX & MARC DUBLIN CORE & VRA

18. A Librarian’s Fantasy MARC ONIX DublinCore VRACore

19. Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

26. I Enhancing Search and Retrieval • I.1 Provide users with direct access to item • I.2 Provide recommender features • I.3 Support customization/personalization • I.4 Offer alternative actions for failed or suspect searches • I.5 Offer better navigation of large sets of search results • I.6 Deliver bibliographic services where the users are • I.7 Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text • I.8 Provide better searching for non-Roman materials

27. II Rearchitecting the OPAC • II.1 Create a single catalog interface for all of UC • II.2 Support searching across the entire bibliographic information space

28. III Adopting New Cataloging Practices • Rearchitect cataloging workflow • Eliminate duplication • Agree on single set of policies • Implement a single data store for UC • Select appropriate metadata scheme • Manually enrich metadata in important areas • Automate metadata creation

30. The Report Clearly Strikes a Chord • Immediate interest within the University of California • Lots of community reaction • Report hit the blogs • Interviews by the Library press • Invitations to present at conferences • Guest lectures at library schools

31. Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession • Gives voice to some popular opinions • Our services must be user driven • Libraries need to act boldly if we are to reclaim our role in the information space • Libraries still have a unique value-add to offer

32. Why the Buzz? Report as a mirror to the profession • Gives voice to some strongly held but controversial perspectives • Our assumptions about metadata should be re-examined • Metadata practices need to have proven value • An intuitive interface is not by definition “dumbed down” or anti-scholarly

33. BSTF Timeline • Dec 04: University Librarians requested a bibliographic services review • Feb 05: SOPAG planned exploratory mtg • March 05: BSTF Charge drafted • May 05: 1st meeting of BSTF • Aug 05: Interim report sent to SOPAG • Dec 05: Final report delivered • March 06: Campus comments due

34. Process for Consultation • Systemwide groups and campuses asked to discuss the report and provide feedback • All asked to respond to the same set of questions • Mix of forced-choice and open-ended questions

35. Questions • Which 3-5 major recommendations are most important? • Which specific recommendations should we do first? • Are there any recommendations to add? • Are there any recommendations we should NOT do?

36. Questions • Which option for a single OPAC should we pursue? • Which organizational and architecture options for re-architecting cataloging workflow should we pursue? • Any other comments on next steps? • Anything else we should be doing to improve bibliographic services?

37. Preliminary UC Results:Popular recommendations • I.1 Direct access to item • I.4 Offer alternatives for failed searches • I.5 Better navigation of large result sets • I.6 Deliver services where the users are • I.8 Better searching for non-Roman • II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC • II.2 Search across the info space • III.1Re-architect cataloging workflow

38. Preliminary UC Results:Recommendations we love to hate • III.2.c Consider abandoning controlled vocabulary for topical subjects • III.1.a Option 2: consolidate cataloging into one or two centers across the state

39. Surprises? Not really • Intelligent & well-intentioned people can disagree • Not all agree that change is imperative • All agree that we need to preserve our values while changing practices, but not all agree on what is a value and what is a practice • Many of the underlying concepts are not well understood without explanation • Many can’t endorse a recommendation if they don’t know how it will be funded.

40. Surprises! • Fear of making the system “too easy” • “If they don’t need to ask us how to use it, we lose a teachable moment” • “If the system looks like Google, the rich diversity of our collections is lost” • Belief that only undergraduates are demanding change • “Undergraduates need an easy system but true scholars like to see the complexity”

41. Surprises! • Fear that the new system envisioned will offer less flexibility than our current systems • “A Google-like search box may work fine if you just need a few good things, but won’t support scholarly research” • “Our users and collections are too diverse to be served by a single solution.”

42. Moving from vision to decision • Mar 06 - Preliminary feedback received • Apr 06 - Analyze feedback and provide report to the University Librarians • Jun 06 - University Librarians decide on actions • Summer 06 - Task Force reconvenes to develop action plans