NISO KBART: The future is automation! Charleston Conference 2017 Christine Stohn Senior Product Manager Discovery & Delivery, Ex Libris/ProQuest   Abigail Wickes Discoverability Associate, Oxford University Press USA C. Derrik Hiatt Head of Continuing Resources & Discovery Services, Mary and Jeff Bell Library, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

Agenda KBART overview Insights from the KBART survey this year KBART Automation – Introduction KBART Automation from the stakeholder perspectives KnowledgeBase Vendor Content provider Library

KBART – a brief history Goal: Increase accuracy of KnowledgeBase content to reflect accurate title list and package offerings of content providers

KBART in the context of the information landscape OpenURL Direct links Users Discovery – Databases - Websites Fulltext KnowledgeBase LinkResolver ERM Title lists (global) Content providers Article (and other) metadata and full text Title lists (local) - Holdings Availability Title lists (local) - Holdings Institution/Library

KBART – a brief history Goal: Increase accuracy of KnowledgeBase content to reflect accurate title list and package offerings of content providers Recommendations Guidelines for best practice Format for files to enable transfer of title lists between information and KB providers Phase I – encompasses the more fundamental recommendations incl. file formats and mandatory fields Phase II – enhances the format with specific requirements such as for ebooks, consortia and open access material Status: Phase II recommendations published in 2014 Standing committee at NISO for Endorsements of information providers for KBART phase II Education

KBART standing committee Magaly Bascones (co-chair), JISC Collections Kathy Marcaccio (co-chair), Cengage Learning Dominic Benson, Brunel University London Benjamin Bober, ABES, France Bettina Huhn, OCLC Ben Johnson, ProQuest  Noah Levin, Springer Nature Sheri Meares, EBSCO Kristen Wilson, North Carolina State University Libraries Jonathan Ponder, ‎JSTOR/ITHAKA Christine Stohn, Ex Libris/ProQuest Jason Friedman, The Canadian Research Knowledge Network   Jeffrey Daniels, Grand Valley State University Libraries Andrée Rathemacher, University of Rhode Island Courtney Collins, University of Waterloo Library Robert Heaton, Utah State University-Merrill-Cazier Library

KBART Survey 2017 Purpose: Responses What do stakeholders know about KBART and how widely is KBART used What are its main benefits Are there any areas for improvement Responses General: 68 respondents from 54 content providers 24 respondents from other organizations (mostly libraries) Ca. 80 % from Europe and North America General use and knowledge of KBART 82 % of content provider respondents are familiar with KBART 87 % of content provider institutions provide title lists in KBART format (93% provide title lists in general) KBART Phase I vs. Phase II endorsements 50 % are using KBART phase II format (as opposed to phase I format) Reason for not using KBART II: no time/other priorities, no demand from customer base, working on it 51 % were not aware that there is a formal endorsement process by the KBAR standing committee 54 content providers from 4 different regions, NA, Europe, Asia. Many of those of course have global reach. We also had some answers from librarians which is particularly important to emphasize the benefits of KBART they see for their work. For this session I extracted a few Highlights, there will be a report available but the group is still working on it and I‘m not yet sure when it will be published. Not every respondent answered every question and for some organisations we had more than one person answering. We had about 68 people from 54 institutions on the content provider side and in addition 24 from other types of organizatons, most of them libraries These on the screen were the main areas that the survey addressed Note: Numbers are in relation to number of respondents to each question

KBART Survey 2017 – KBART benefits Content providers Easy content integration with link resolvers Internationally recognized Customer satisfaction Better discoverability and usage of content Data accuracy and reliability Better match with how content is sold Ease of maintenance, incl. effective sharing of data with multiple vendors Visibility Improved relationship between stakeholders Libraries Depend on publishers providing KBART files for discovery Standard way of providing info about journals within a platform Streamlined workflow for discovery of resources To have a standard tool to use with the publishers to establish perpetual access rights for the collection purchased

KBART Survey 2017 Why is formal endorsement important? Recognition and credibility Customer satisfaction Adhering to recognized standard Review compliance and recommendations with experts Stakeholder communication What new features would you like to be added to the KBART recommendation Add more data points such More identifiers More metadata Add pre-ceding title information for journals Add recommendations for frequency of exchange Support for non-text based material Describe article/chapter level resources

KBART Automation in the context of the information landscape Fulltext Title lists (local) - Holdings Institution/Library Title lists (global) Content providers Article (and other) metadata and full text OpenURL Direct links Users Discovery – Databases - Websites KnowledgeBase Availability LinkResolver ERM

KBART Automation – Possible (simplified) flow Institution/Library 1. Institutional Token Content provider API 3. Request Scheduler Import KnowledgeBase Frontend 2. Institutional Token 4. File 5. Upload 6. Update KB content One time activity Scheduled activity

KBART automation work group Goals: Produce a recommended practice for the automated exchange of title lists and holdings in KBART format Phase I: The automated transfer of a KBART snapshot report from the content provider to the KnowledgeBase Work items: Evaluation of the current landscape Use cases for KBART automation Prototype for an automated transfer Publish recommendations Promotion and market education

KBART automation work group Stephanie Doellinger (co-chair) OCLC Online Computer Library Center Oliver Pesch (co-chair) EBSCO Information Services Lisa Gonzalez Private Academic Library Network of Indiana (PALNI) Rena Grossman John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Derrik Hiatt Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi Benjamin Johnson ProQuest Noah Levin Springer Jozef Paulik Elsevier Jason Price SCELC Consortium Charlie Remy University of Tennessee Chattanooga  Christine Stohn Ex Libris/ProQuest Peter Vlahakis ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico Abigail Wickes Oxford University Press Dongqing Xie ITHAKA/JSTOR/Portico Julie Zhu IEEE

KBART Automation: The KnowledgeBase vendor perspective

The KnowledgeBase vendor benefits Reduce overhead in operation and development Increase customer satisfaction Meeting market demands Implement processes once Use them for every content provider Avoid proprietory implementation per content provider Faster implementation time for new content providers