Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

KBART Phase II: The Next Step Towards Better Metadata


Published on

Presented at the Charleston Conference, November 9, 2012: After the publication of the Phase I recommendations to improve the exchange of metadata with knowledge bases in January 2010, the NISO/UKSG KBART working group has been working on enhanced recommendations in Phase II for the last two years. Our work will be finished by the end of this year and we would like to present our new proposal. Phase II will include new recommendations for eBook, Open Access and consortia metadata and significantly add to the already existing Phase I best practices.

The details of the new guidelines will be presented to the attendees so they can learn about the improvements these changes will have for the metadata transfer to knowledge bases. They will also get to hear about the current working group and a substantial amount of new endorsers for the recommended practice.

In the end, we would like to get some feedback from the audience about the results from Phase II and discuss these findings with them. Some very important topics have been touched so we would like to make sure that they are known to, understood by a bigger audience and we would like to point out the benefits which arise from these recommendations and how they affect different groups within the publishing community.

Published in: Education
  • Login to see the comments

KBART Phase II: The Next Step Towards Better Metadata

  1. 1. KBART Phase II: The Next Step Towards Better Metadata Ben Johnson Lead Metadata Librarian, KnowledgeWorks Provider Data Acquisitions & Integration, Serials Solutions Nettie Lagace Associate Director for Programs, NISO The Charleston Conference November 9, 2012 1
  2. 2. OpenURL basics print collections gateways article citationdatabase OpenURL query (base URL repository publisher/provider + metadata string) publisher holdings data website link resolver/ knowledge base target (cited) article
  3. 3. What is a KnowledgeBase? • A database • Contains information about web resources (global) – e.g. what journal holdings are available in JSTOR – and how you link to articles in them • Contains information about the resources a library has licensed/owns (local) – May contain electronic and print holdings (in addition to a number of other services) • Used by a link resolver to direct institutional users to the „appropriate copy’
  4. 4. KnowledgeBase‟s Central Role in the Library• It knows where all the content is• It knows which versions the library is able to access• So – it‟s the only place that can get a user to the “appropriate copy” … the one that his/her library has licensed.
  5. 5. Benefits for All• More content visible to end users• Content linking is more accurate for end users• Increase in content usage• Maximum reach for authors and editors• Better return on investment for library• Favourable renewal decision• Protection of revenue for content providers
  6. 6. Where the chain breaks• Wrong data – Publisher gives wrong metadata for title to the KB – Link resolver uses bad metadata to make link – Link does not resolve to correct target – Dead end • Outdated data – Publisher said it has a particular issue – Link resolver links to an article from it – Issue has been removed – Dead end  – Or, provider doesn’t notify that issue is now live – So no traffic from link resolvers to that issue!
  7. 7. KBART: A simple metadata exchange format
  8. 8. • Standards / industry • Rose Robinson, Publishing Technology • Andreas Biedenbach, Independent organisations • Ruth Wells, Taylor & Francis – UKSG and NISO • Julie Zhu, AIP• Working group members • AIP, T&F, Royal Society Publishing, (stakeholders): Publishing Technology, Cengage Gale, Swets, Springer – Knowledge base vendors & Subscription Agents – Libraries & Consortia • Ben Johnson, Serials Solutions • Magaly Bascones, JISC • Christine Stohn, Ex Libris • Sarah Price, University of Birmingham • Paul Moss, OCLC • Louise Cole, Kingston University • Sheri Meares, EBSCO • Chad Hutchens, University of Wyoming • Marieke Heins, Swets • Jason Price, Claremont – Content Providers (Publisher & Colleges/SCELC Aggregators) • Liz Stephenson, University of • Matthew Llewellin, The Royal Society Edinburgh • Gary Pollack, Cengage Learning
  9. 9. Ebooks• Challenges – Incomplete – Non-standard data – Frequency 9
  10. 10. Ebooks• Phase I – recommendations were serial-centric – Some fields were dual-purpose • date_first_issue_online • Identifiers – Holding‟s content type was ambiguous• Phase II – 8 new monographic fields added – Disambiguation of usage 10
  11. 11. Ebooks Serials! – Phase II• Serials-only fields for Phase II: – date_first_issue_online – num_first_vol_online – num_first_issue_online – date_last_issue_online – num_last_vol_online – num_last_issue_online 11
  12. 12. Ebooks and Serials! – Phase II• Fields used for both monographs and serials: – Identifiers – title_id – embargo_info – coverage_depth – coverage_notes – title_url – Publication_type (Serial, Monograph) 12
  13. 13. New Ebooks fields for Phase II• date_monograph_published_print• date_monograph_published_online• monograph_volume• monograph_edition• first_editor 13
  14. 14. Book Series / Proceedings - Phase II• Challenges – Both serial and monograph – Users search for both titles• New fields – parent_publication_title_id – preceding_publication_title_id 14
  15. 15. Open Access• OA has gotten more popular• Importance of facilitating access to both paid and free peer-reviewed, quality publications (not just fee-based material). 15
  16. 16. Open Access• Challenges – What to do with Hybrid OA models? • Embargoed Hybrid OA – example: free access until one year ago. • Title transfer OA – title changes from OA to paid (or vice versa) upon transfer to another publisher. • Author-paid OA – some articles fee-based. • Full OA – all content is free – Title-level vs. article-level OA metadata 16
  17. 17. Open Access• The decision was made not to differentiate between Free and OA for KBART.• Needed to strike a balance between noting significant OA content and making the file understandable. 17
  18. 18. Open Access• Free-text coverage_notes field suggested to explain subtleties of OA availability for that particular title.• New field – access_type – “F” – title is mostly fee-based (subscription/purchase) – “OA” – 50% or more of the title is OA/freely accessible. 18
  19. 19. Consortia• Survey results• Libraries purchase titles as a consortium• Consortium administrators and librarians need the same title-level information from their consortium-purchased packages as they do from “vanilla” publisher packages.• Difficult to obtain accurate consortium- specific title lists. 19
  20. 20. Consortia• We re-state the importance of providing a separate file for each “Global” package that the Content Provider offers.• Consortium-specific files should be created when: – A unique set of titles has been packaged for the consortium, different than the Content Provider‟s standard packages. – A package contains unique dates of coverage. 20
  21. 21. Consortia• Changes to file naming for ALL files.• Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file structure. – [ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[Package Name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt – Applicable to Consortia packages and Regional variants (e.g., “Asia-Pacific”, “Germany”, etc.) – “Global” value is used if the package is available for all libraries to purchase. 21
  22. 22. Consortia – New File Name Examples• Title list is not region or consortium-specific, includes all titles from the content provider: – JSTOR_Global_AllTitles_2008-12-01.txt – Taylor & Francis_Global_AllTitles_2012-08-30• Title list is consortium-specific, for a specific package: – IOP_NESLi2_Option 1 (2011)_2012-05-31.txt (includes a year as part of the package name) – Oxford_SCELC_AllTitles_2012-01-09.txt (contains all titles that the consortium has subscribed to)• Title list is region-specific, for a specific package: – Springer_Asia-Pacific_Medicine_2012-08-03.txt 22
  23. 23. KBART’s lifespanPhase 1 – Universally accepted standardized publisher metadata, regularly distributed AND available on demandPhase 2 – Broad adoption, Consortia, More content type coverage (eBooks, conference proceedings), Open Access materials – Draft now in final stages – Available for public review before the end of the yearPhase 3? – Even more content types, automated delivery, institutional metadata????
  24. 24. Publisher Involvement1. Everything can be found at Review the requirements (data samples available)3. Format your title lists accordingly.4. Self-check to ensure they conform to the recommended practice5. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data updates6. Register your organization on the KBART registry website:
  25. 25. thank you! * 25