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.

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. OpenURL basics
print
collections
gateways
article citation
database OpenURL
query (base URL
repository
publisher/provider + metadata string)
publisher holdings data
website
link resolver/
knowledge base
target (cited)
article

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. 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. 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. 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. KBART: A simple metadata exchange format

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. Ebooks
• Challenges
– Incomplete
– Non-standard data
– Frequency
9

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. 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. 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. New Ebooks fields for Phase II
• date_monograph_published_print
• date_monograph_published_online
• monograph_volume
• monograph_edition
• first_editor
13

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. KBART’s lifespan
Phase 1 – Universally accepted standardized publisher
metadata, regularly distributed AND available on
demand
Phase 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 year
Phase 3? – Even more content types, automated delivery,
institutional metadata????

24. Publisher Involvement
1. Everything can be found at
http://www.uksg.org/kbart/endorsement
2. Review the requirements (data samples available)
3. Format your title lists accordingly.
4. Self-check to ensure they conform to the
recommended practice
5. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular
data updates
6. Register your organization on the KBART registry
website: http://bit.ly/kbartregistry

25. thank you!
nlagace@niso.org * @abugseye
Benjamin.Johnson@SerialsSolutions.com
25