ER&L KBART Update
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•428 views
The document discusses the KBART working group, which aims to improve the effectiveness of OpenURL linking by addressing problems with holdings data accuracy, OpenURL implementation, and lack of knowledge about OpenURL. The group is developing best practice guidelines for data transfer between publishers, link resolvers, and libraries. This will help ensure patrons get accurate links to full text. The document outlines challenges in dealing with inaccurate data and getting all stakeholders to participate.
![Today’s Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (17)
Viewers also liked
Similar to ER&L KBART Update
Similar to ER&L KBART Update (20)
More from Jason Price, PhD
More from Jason Price, PhD (20)
ER&L KBART Update
- 1. KNOWLEDGE BASES AND RELATED TOOLS: IMPROVING OPENURL EFFECTIVENESS Jason Price, PhD Claremont Colleges/SCELC KBART Working Group Member ER&L 2009 Conference UCLA X X KBART K ? ok ?
- 5. Why we do what we do… http://tinyurl.com/59txop
- 6. The OpenURL resolver window
- 7. Transport to the target database…
- 8. … containing the full text
- 13. Problem Overview Knowledge bases Date coverage Title relations Licensing Data & transfer Supply chain Compliance accuracy format vol/issue vs date date granularity (day, month, season, year) title changes title mapping abbreviations ISSN/ISBN variations re-use of ISSN effect on licensing genericism/granularity misrepresentation package variations accuracy free content format ownership contacts/feedback mechanisms incentive informal structure unclear responsibilities duplication of effort file format format definitions; shoe-horning age of data accuracy frequency link syntax and granularity
- 15. Inaccurate Data – The problem Error Level False (+) including links to inaccessible content False (-) lacking links to accessible content Title Access not activated by publisher Accessible title not listed in KB/Catalog Date Range Part of access not activated by publisher OR Years of access over-represented in KB/Catalog Years of access under-represented in KB/Catalog
- 16. Inaccurate Data – Impact Listing of ≈ 120,000 articles needed correction (based on estimated ave. 6x/yr & 10 articles/issue) Error Level False ( + ) False ( - ) Title 290 journal yrs 1205 journal yrs Date Range 485 journal yrs
- 19. Correcting Inaccurate Data – the hard way 226 titles = 16%
- 23. Incorrect Implementation – the problem article citation (SOURCE) query (base URL + metadata string) link resolver/ knowledge base target (cited) article publisher website database print collections gateways publisher/provider holdings data repository
Editor's Notes
- What good is a standard if you cant ignore it? But OpenURL works, a lot, and theres the COUNTER standard…
- Title by title Survey of 2250 individual Claremont Colleges journal subscriptions (less than 10% of the total number of titles we list) NB: this does NOT include aggregator titles, unsubscribed titles, OR freely available titles
- Out of the 2250 individual subscriptions, we found that… And remember this is for less than 10% of the titles we list that should have been the MOST accurate There are certainly many sources of these errors—though they would be largely solved by accurate transfer of individual libraries’ access rights directly from the publisher (that has to manage them) to the KB provider in machine readable form OK –so maybe that’s a pipe dream, but we should—we must--be able to make progress in that direction
- Here’s a concrete example at the consortial level – a before and a hoped for after
- Reconciliation of publisher access list w/ older custom consortium package KB list and reality check Main point is NOT the level of accuracy of the older consortium list (which is far more accurate than the global list), But the number of titles that had to be checked by hand, and the necessity of editing the KB list rather than just passing on the publisher list
- Not just fixing inacurracies, but trying to build in user-centered improvements too
- If Google provides access to more content users will not trust (or use) this valuable tool; Segue – I choose to believe that if they don’t come its because they don’t think its important, and that clearly