About the Webinar Link resolvers have become an important element of providing access to full-text electronic content and are now ubiquitous in both the library and publishing community. These systems work well enough a majority of the time. However, they are not entirely problem free, and as a result users may not always obtain access to information which their institutions have licensed for them. The management of the large volumes of linking data necessary to support these services is a problem in scale as well as in detail. Several NISO projects have sought to improve the reliability of these systems, including the Knowledgebases and Related Tools (KBART) and Improving OpenURL through Analytics (IOTA) initiatives. This webinar will highlight these NISO projects and other community initiatives launched to create community-managed knowledge base repositories. Agenda Introduction Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO Building the Global Open Knowledgebase Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor, North Carolina State University Libraries KBART: A Recommended Practice to Increase Accessibility and Discovery Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections, University of Wyoming Libraries What we learned about OpenURL in NISO’s IOTA Initiative Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian, Cornell University

1. NISO Webinar:
Getting to the Right Content:
Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases
May 14, 2014
Speakers:
Kristen Wilson, Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery / GOKb Editor,
North Carolina State University Libraries
Chad Hutchens, Head, Digital Collections,
University of Wyoming Libraries
Adam Chandler, Electronic Resources User Experience Librarian,
Cornell University
http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/

2. Kristen Wilson
May 14, 2014
BUILDING THE
GLOBAL OPEN
KNOWLEDGEBASE

3. OVERVIEW
What is
GOKb?
The
problem
space
How can
GOKb
help?
Next
steps

4.  An enhanced knowledgebase
 A community-managed knowledgebase
 An open data knowledgebase
WHAT IS GOKB?

5. GOKB PARTNERS

6. GOKB TIME LINE
2012 2013 2014 20152011 2016
GOKb and KB+
collaborate on data
model
GOKb Phase I:
Proof of Concept
Release
Funded by Mellon
Foundation & Kuali
OLE Partnership
GOKb
Public
Release
Community development
New partners
Enhanced functionaityGOKb Phase II:
Partner Release

7. THE PROBLEM SPACE
•Kbs were primarily
used for access
•They became a
part of the add-on
ERMS
•Movement toward
integrated
systems
•A positive and
necessary
experience.
The Kb
experiment

8. THE PROBLEM SPACE
•Kbs are needed for
management too
•Identifiers are
crucial
•We need to
manage all e-
resources
•Systems should be
integrated and Kb-
centric
Lessons
learned

9. Managing the right
“thing”
Going beyond
bibliographic
description
Creating identifiers
for what we need to
manage
WHY KB-CENTRIC?
Title:
Tetrahedron
Letters
Format:
Electronic
Publisher:
Elsevier
Package:
Freedom
Collection
Platform:
ScienceDirect

10.  Enhanced data means we can manage what’s
important
 Open data means that the knowledgebase is not
wedded to any one system
 Community-managed data means we contribute
directly to the quality of the knowledgebase
HOW CAN GOKB HELP?

11. ENHANCED DATA: THE TIPP
Global (GOKb)
Local

12. Title changes
ISSN change as principal indicator
Earlier Related Title and Later Related Title
Titles within a package on a platform (TIPPs)
Organization role changes, especially
Publisher transfers
ENHANCED DATA:
CHANGES OVER TIME

13. GOKb
TIPP
E-
ISSN
P-
ISSN
DOIVendor
ID
Catalog
ID
ENHANCED DATA: IDENTIFIERS

14.  GOKb is just data – it’s not tied to any one system
 GOKb will support Kuali OLE and KB+ -- but it can
support any other project too
 External systems will access data via API
 GOKb will include a co-referencing service to
crosswalk between different sets of identifiers
OPEN DATA

15. COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA:
DOING MORE TOGETHER
• Publisher Data
• Package information
• Standard licencesGlobal (GOKb)
• National/Consortial information
• National licences
• Central ServicesNational (KB+)
• Local holdings
• Financial information
• Documentation
Institutional
(OLE)

16.  Initial ingest: OpenRefine
 Apply rules
 Validate data
 Working with data: GOKb web application
 Browse and search data
 Make corrections
 Submit error reports
COMMUNITY-MANAGED DATA:
TOOLS FOR CONTRIBUTORS

17. GOKB DEMO: OPEN REFINE

18. GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION

19. GOKB DEMO: WEB APPLICATION

20.  Data collection
 Ebooks
 Linked data
Building community
NEXT STEPS

21.  It’s a community, not a start up
 Ensure consistency of data across supply chain
 Open data and software
 Extensible community model for data management
 Structured participation will be possible for:
 National Kbs
 Vendors
 Individual libraries
WHY SHOULD YOU GET INVOLVED?

22. Kristen Wilson
GOKb Editor
Associate Head of Acquisitions & Discovery
North Carolina State University Libraries
kristen_wilson@ncsu.edu
gokb.org
QUESTIONS?

23. KBART Phase II: Ensuring
Access with Accurate Metadata
Chad Hutchens
Head of Digital Collections
University of Wyoming Libraries

24. KBART Working Group
Knowledge
Bases
And
Related
Tools

25. Metadata Supply Chain
Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link resolver

26. Metadata Supply Chain
The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers) and knowledgebases

27. The Problem
If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is
outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link resolver
and all systems reliant upon it (discovery
services, OPAC, ILL, etc.)

28. KBART Background
Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries
What – Universal holdings metadata format to improve the
OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply chain
Where – NISO KBART Workroom
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart
When –
Phase I – Released Jan 2010
Endorsement of Phase I – Began June 2010
Phase II - Released April 7, 2014 *Supercedes KBART Phase I*
Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings
data

29. Who is behind KBART II
 Standards organizations
 UKSG and NISO
 Working group members (stakeholders):
 Knowledgebase vendors
ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO
 Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators)
ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing, Springer
 Subscription Agents
 Libraries & Consortia
 Full list –http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/phase2roster/

30. KBART Registry
 Clearinghouse for KBART metadata
 Endorsed publishers, vendors, etc.
 Contact information
 URL's to KBART metadata
 https://sites.google.com/site/kbartregistry/

31. Original Phase I Fields (16)

32. Updating the Rec’s
 Spreading the word and outreach
 Working with content providers, vendors, etc.
 Soliciting broad feedback (all feedback included
in Phase II Recommendations)
 Focus on 3 new areas

33. 3 Areas of Emphasis
 Freely available content
 Ebooks & Conference Proceedings
 Consortial Holdings
 9 new fields (for a total of 25) & applicable new
guidelines

34. Free Content: New Field
 1 new field, 1 modification to existing field
 New “access_type” field
 Type can be “F,” for free content, or “P” for paid
content (is aligned with OAMI rec’s thus far)
 Free text describing details may be entered into
existing “coverage_notes” field.

35. Free Content Issues
 KBART is not endorsing any particular
Open Access model
• For “F” to be used, 100% of title’s content must
be freely available
 Difficulty with hybrid titles (author pays OA,
embargoes, rolling access walls, etc.)
 Needs to be addressed at the article-level

36. Ebooks & Conference
Proceedings, Part 1
 8 new fields total
 1 new field applies to differentiate formats
 New “publication_type” field
 Type can be “monograph,” “journal,” or
“conference proceeding”

37. Ebooks & Conference
Proceedings, Part 2
Field Description
publication_type Serial (i.e., journals and conference proceeding
series) or monograph (i.e., book, eBook, conference
proceeding volume)
date_monograph_published_print Date of monograph first published in print
date_monograph_published_online Date of monograph first published online
monograph_volume Number of volume for monograph (applicable to
eBooks and conference proceedings; for proceedings,
volume within the conference proceedings series)
monograph_edition Edition for book
first_editor First editor (for monographs, i.e., ebooks or
conference proceedings volumes)
parent_publication_title_id Title ID of parent publication (for a conference
proceeding volume, its parent_publication_title_id is
the title_id of the conference proceedings series)
preceding_publication_title_id Title ID of preceding publication title, for journal serials
and conference proceeding serials.

38. Ebook & Conference
Proceedings: Issues
 Some existing fields already apply to
monographs and serials (e.g. identifier fields for
ISSN/ISBN)
 Some new fields are used for certain formats
(e.g. “monograph_edition”)
 “preceeding_publication_title_ID” can be
problematic

39. Consortial Holdings
 Librarians & consortium managers really wanted
this (and more)!
 Lack of readily available consortium lists
 No new fields for this area specifically, rather,
new guidelines

40. Consortial Holdings:
Guidelines
 Will require separate lists under 2
circumstances:
1) Package consists of unique titles
-or-
2) Package consists of unique coverage dates

41. Consortial Holdings: File
naming conventions
“[ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[PackageName]
_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt”
 Global lists (i.e. universal list)
Ex:JSTOR_Global_AllTitles_2013-01-14.txt
 Consortium specific lists
Ex: Oxford_SCELC_AllTitles_2013-01-09.txt
 Region specific lists
Ex: Springer_Asia-Pacific_Medicine_2013-01-28.txt

42. How we got to Phase II
 Draft of KBART Phase II released Oct, 2013 for
public comment period
 Received 45+ comments
 Group met and discussed each individually
 Nettie, Chad, Magaly spend holidays drafting
responses and making changes to rec’s ;)
 D2D Committee approves Phase II, April 7, 2014!
 NISO KBART RP-9-2014 is at:
http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/rp-9-2014/

43. What's next?
 6 month transition to Phase II, target of
September, 2014!
 Standing committee
 Focus on endorsement, maintenance
 Work with new content providers

44. Useful Resources to Google
 NISO KBART Workroom
 KBART Phase I Final Report
 KBART Phase II Final Report (RP-9-2014)
 KBART Registry
 Link Resolvers and the Information Supply Chain

45. What we learned about OpenURL in
NISO’s IOTA Initiative
NISO Webinar: Getting to the Right Content: Link
Resolvers and Knowledgebases
May 14, 2014
Adam Chandler, Cornell University

46. What was IOTA?
2010-2013 NISO Working Group that
measured the relative importance of the
elements that make up OpenURL links to
help vendors improve their OpenURL strings
so that the maximum number of OpenURL
requests resolve to a correct record.

47. Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking
• Certain A&I database providers (e.g., CSA, PubMed)
offered full-text linking options for a select number of
content providers.
• Libraries manually activated full-text linking with
providers they had subscriptions with.

48. Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons

49. Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons
• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for
each full-text provider.
• A&I providers offering this option were few.
• Selection of full-text providers was limited.
Cons:

50. Proprietary Linking: Pros and Cons
• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for
each full-text provider.
• A&I providers offering this option were few.
• Selection of full-text providers was limited.
• Once set up, the static links to full texts were
accurate.
• Debugging is easy: A&I --> Full Text
Pros:
Cons:

51. Advent of OpenURL
Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos.
• Open standard generating dynamic links at time of
request. Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings.
• Replaces librarian as intermediary in linking.
• Indicates provider of "appropriate copy"
Solution: A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text
("Target")

52. A, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objects for
the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44
(November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed
October 24, 2010).
OpenURL: syntax, resolver, linking nodes
http://www.anytarget.com/?issn=0957-4484&volume=21&issue=44&date=20101105
&spage=445201&title=Nanotechnology&atitle=A+versatile+nanotechnology+to+
connect+individual+nano-objects+for+the+ fabrication+of+hybrid+single-
electron+devices.&aulast=A++Bernand
Source Citation
Target Link (example using OpenURL syntax, similar to Source OpenURL)

53. Example of Resolver Menu Page
Matthew Reidsma, “jQuery for Customizing Hosted Library Services", http://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/11 (accessed July
18, 2012)

54. Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking

55. Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking
Pros:
• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less
work for libraries and providers.
• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I
platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary
linking.

56. Pros & Cons of Dynamic Reference Linking
Pros:
• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup: Less
work for libraries and providers.
• Dynamic reference linking scales better. Participation by A&I
platforms and full-text providers grew faster than proprietary
linking.
Cons:
• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: debugging
is very hard and does not scale.
• No systematic method exists to benchmark linking, and
thus, dynamic reference linking has not improved significantly
since version 0.1 of the standard.

57. Identifying source of problem…
"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or
strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers
is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by
databases (for example, A&I products)."
Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33.
http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.

58. Identifying source of problem…
"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or
strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers
is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by
databases (for example, A&I products)."
Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33.
http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.
Defining methodology for approaching problem
Researchers have indicated the need for metadata quality
metrics, including:
completeness;
accuracy;
conformance to expectations;
logical consistency and coherence.
Bruce, Thomas R. and Hillmann, Diane I. 2004. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining,
Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice. Ed. Diane I. Hillmann and Elaine L. Westbrooks. Chicago:
American Library Association, pp. 238-256.

60. IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups
IOTA
• Deals with issues
specific to OpenURL
linking;
• Seeks improvements
in OpenURL elements
used by:
–OpenURL providers.

61. IOTA & KBART: complementary NISO working groups
IOTA
• Deals with issues
specific to OpenURL
linking;
• Seeks improvements
in OpenURL elements
used by:
–OpenURL providers.
KBART
• “Knowledge Bases
And Related Tools”
• Deals with data issues
at the KB level
• Seeks improvements
in data exchange
practices between:
–content providers (e.g.
OpenURL providers);
–product vendors (e.g.
link resolver vendors).
–subscription agents;

62. IOTA’s Basic Assumptions
• Results achieved through an analytical investigation of
how OpenURL links work.
• Practical: Not the OpenURL standard that was
addressed, but links (OpenURLs) generated by
standard.
• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant
improvement in linking success rate. "small changes.
big improvements"

63. (A) Usefulness of comparing OpenURLs
• Content providers that generate OpenURLs can:
–compare their OpenURLs with other providers;
–make improvements to their OpenURLs.
• Institutions can:
–compare OpenURL providers;
–make local adjustments to OpenURL setup.
• Resolver vendors can:
–compare OpenURL providers;
–Change their settings for OpenURL providers:
–Link resolvers;
–Web-scale discovery products.

64. http://openurlquality.org/

65. Report types
• Source reports
–Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database
–A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)
–B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)
• Element / Pattern reports
–Viewing how a particular (1) element or format
–A. is used across vendors
–B. is used across databases

66. Report types
• Source reports
–Viewing how a particular (1) vendor or (2) database
–A. uses OpenURL elements (element frequency)
–B. formats OpenURL elements (pattern frequency)
• Element / Pattern reports
–Viewing how a particular (1) element or format
–A. is used across vendors
–B. is used across databases
• Vendor Quality Report?
–Viewing vendors’ OpenURL quality score

67. (B) OpenURL Quality Index:
Rating vendors by their OpenURLs
1. Core Elements:
•Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting
system;
•27M OpenURLs obtained from libraries & content providers.
2. Scoring System:
•Assumption: Correlation exists between
•# of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & ability of OpenURLs to
link to specific content.
3. Element Weighting:
•Assigned based on their relative importance:
•spage vs atitle
•issn vs jtitle
•doi/pmid vs date, etc.

68. Further investigation was needed

69. Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more
systematic way:

70. Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more
systematic way:
• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)
• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs
spage, etc.)

71. Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more
systematic way:
• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)
• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs
spage, etc.)
• IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only.
How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?

72. Further investigation was needed
• Element weighting needed to be adjusted in a more
systematic way:
• Importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic
data (issn, volume, spage, etc.)
• Relative importance of bib. data (issn vs volume vs
spage, etc.)
• IOTA focused on OpenURLs from citation sources only.
How is OpenURL linking impacted by other factors?
• knowledge base,
• resolver,
• full-text provider (target).

73. http://www.niso.org/publications/tr/

74. It is impossible to give each
OpenURL element a universal weight.
Therefore, an industry wide OpenURL
quality index is impossible.

75. http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/

76. Adam Chandler
alc28@cornell.edu
https://twitter.com/alc28

77. NISO Webinar • May 14, 2014
Questions?
All questions will be posted with presenter answers on
the NISO website following the webinar:
http://www.niso.org/news/events/2014/webinars/resolvers/
NISO Webinar:
Getting to the Right Content:
Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases

78. Thank you for joining us today.
Please take a moment to fill out the brief online survey.
We look forward to hearing from you!
THANK YOU