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 Patti Martin CDL

2. University of California Overview • 10 Campuses • 10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, home grown) • Melvyl (UC union catalog) • Shared Cataloging Program

3. A Wake-Up Call “Our users expect simplicity and immediate reward and Amazon, Google, and iTunes are the standards against which we are judged.”

4. Things are not ok “The current Library catalog is poorly designed for the tasks of finding, discovering, and selecting the growing set of resources available in our libraries …” “We offer a fragmented set of systems to search for published information …”

5. Increased recognition that: • Bibliographic systems are the foundation of library services • Metadata is valuable and strategic • Libraries are filled with undiscoverable yet extremely valuable material • Examples to learn from: OCLC WorldCat, RedLightGreen, NCSU’s new catalog, etc.

6. The Time is Right “The combined effect of these pressures suggests that the time has come to thoroughly review library bibliographic services and practices, workflows, and technologies” UC University Librarians appoint Bibliographic Services Task Force, April 2005

7. The Charge (simplified and shortened) • Inventory the middleware, workflow and processes involved • Identify the problems that need to be solved • Develop a vision and design principles for a new bibliographic services environment • Identify potential actions • Deliver a report with recommendations and priorities

8. 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

9. In the (almost) Beginning

10. 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

11. The Library ILS

15. Course Management Systems

20. Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

27. Enhancing Search and Retrieval • Provide users with direct access to item • Provide recommender features • Support customization/personalization • Offer alternative actions for failed searches • Spelling • Suggestions for no results

28. Cont. • Offer better navigation of large sets of research results • Deliver bibliographic services where the users are • Course management systems, campus portals • Expose metadata to search engines • Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text

29. And now, looking behind the curtain …

30. Rearchitecting the OPAC • Create a single catalog interface for all UC • Support searching across the entire bibliographic space

31. Adopting New Cataloging Practices • Rearchitect cataloging workflow • Select the appropriate metadata scheme • Manually enrich metadata in important areas • Automate metadata creation

32. Resuscitate Metadata • Metadata matters • Make metadata work harder • Avoid complexity that doesn’t add value • Add more metadata to support better services

33. Metadata is more than MARC • MARC, Dublin Core, VRA Core, METS • TOCs, book reviews, abstracts • User comments, folksonomies, added information • Data mining of full text, records of use, relationships

34. Make Metadata Work Together ONIX & MARC DUBLIN CORE & VRA MARC & User Tags

35. Work Smarter • Adopt metadata created elsewhere • Create and maintain records in one place • Move from shared cataloging to collaborative cataloging • Focus on being good enough instead of perfect • Generate more management information

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

37. Lita Blog: January 26 2006 KG Schneider “If there is one meta-trend I am seeing right now, it is this: librarians are getting frisky. We’re talking back, questioning authority, and in some cases taking names and kicking booty, as Andrew Pace did recently with the NCSU catalog (Andrew, can we call your OPAC “Miss Piggy”?) and as the UC system did with its must-read, put-this-under-your-pillow, OMG-this-is-hot BSTF Report.

38. Why the Buzz? Report gives voice to some popular opinions • Our services must be user driven • Our services need to be delivered where the users are • 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

39. Why the Buzz? Report gives voice to some 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

40. Why the buzz? Report challenges current practices • Our catalogs are poorly designed • Our bibliographic systems are fragmented • Our bibliographic data dispersed • Our workflows are cumbersome • Work is duplicated

41. What Next? Campuses and UC committee feedback was due by March 31, 2006 Four questions • Which 3-5 recommendations are most important? • Which specific recommendations should we do first? • Are there any recommendations to add? • Are there any recommendations we should NOT pursue?

42. Preliminary UC Feedback:Popular recommendations I. Enhancing Search and Retrieval • 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

43. Preliminary UC Feedback:Popular recommendations II. Re-architecting the OPAC • II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC • II.2 Search across the entire info space III. Adopting New Cataloging Practices • III.1 Re-architect cataloging workflow

44. Preliminary UC Feedback: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

45. Surprises? Not really Intelligent & well-intentioned people can disagree • Not all agree that change is urgent or we’re doomed • 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

46. Surprises? Not really Recommendations are difficult to discuss in the abstract • 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 • Many are skeptical about the feasibility of accomplishing the recommendations

47. Surprises? Not really People have trouble moving beyond their expectations of current systems • Many look at the examples that illustrate concepts and think the change will look the same • Many assume we will implement with the same technology and/or the same organization

48. 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”

49. 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.”

50. Next Steps:Moving from vision to decision Apr 06 - Analyze feedback and provide report to the University Librarians Jun 06 - University Librarians decide on actions Jul 06 - Task Force reconvenes to develop action plans