1. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Primo: Bringing Next Generation Unified Search to Notre Dame Primo: Bringing Next Generation Unified Search to Notre Dame ALA Midwinter Denver, Colorado January 24, 2009 Pascal Calarco Mark Dehmlow

2. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame

3. Methodology Observed Courseware Group  Simplified process  No weighting, aggregate numbers, yes – no – maybe  Condensed timeframe Made Evaluation Variables Explicit Spent the first half of process getting consensus on categories  Helped handle disagreement Asked to provide recommendations  Gave comparative analysis of top 3 candidates

4. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Analysis Details 44 questions in twelve areas To what extent does each solution meet/exceed our desired functionality requirements? Answered questions by:  Using the solutions at other sites  Referring to product literature  Ask on support websites  Detailed inquiries to sales people

5. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Comparative Analysis Categories 1)Search functionality  Relevance ranking, FRBR, faceted browse, visualization, etc. 2)Spelling correction & suggestion  Did you mean?, alternate terms, etc. 3)User experience  Usable interface, pleasing aesthetics, customizable, etc. 4)Index capability  Metasearch integration, API integration, etc. 5)Record enrichment  Book covers, TOCs, reviews, etc.

6. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Comparative Analysis Categories 6)Supported data formats & sources  MARC, Dublin Core, EAD, TEI, I&A Data, Full text, etc. 7)ILS integration  Circulation availablility 8)Social computing  Reviews, ratings, tagging, etc. 9)Enhanced services  RSS, e-mail notification, mobile device support, etc.

7. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Comparative Analysis Categories 10) System and personnel requirements  Hardware, support, ease of management, statistics, etc. 11) APIs  Web services, SDKs, etc. 12) Support Options  Vendor, community, etc.

8. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame What did we find?  A spectrum of features, functionality and integrability  Open toolkits to tightly-integrated turnkey systems  A few systems oriented to broad, inclusive content indexing and discovery  Most feature social computing/library 2.0 feature sets

9. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Evaluating the Options NichesVisionaries Completeness of Vision ChallengersLeaders Ability to Execute Encore Evergreen ILS WorldCat Local Endeca Koha Summa Zebra Extensible Catalog (XC) Open Library Primo VUFind Aquabrowser

10. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame How Do You Decide?  Needs to be in the context of your institution  How much money can you spend?  What is your timeline for implementation?  How much technical expertise do you have?  How much technical time do you have?  Is open source part of your institutional culture?  What companies do you do business with?  Do you need more features than what comes “out of the box”?

11. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame

12.  MARC records: Bethel College, Holy Cross College, Saint Mary's College, Hesburgh Libraries, Kresge Law Library  Approximately 3.5 million records total  We are first Primo site to have III Millennium; some development partnership with Ex Libris  Plan for record loading enhancement plug-in to merge bibs, holdings, and availability  Working on real time availability plug-in MALC & Kresge Law Library Union Catalog March 2009 soft launch, Fall 2009 Production Phase I

13. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame  Encoded Archival Description (EAD): Special Collections & University Archives (1K records)‏  Art Image Library (DigiTool) (5K records)‏  Electronic Theses & Dissertations (500 records)‏  Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and other - Special Collections content (1K records)‏  IUSB (1M records)  Center for Research Libraries MARC records (1M records)‏ Phase II Local Digital Content (Q1, 2009)

14. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame  MARC records for electronic sets (400K records)‏  These have been particularly problematic batch loading in the ILS  ECCO, EEBO, Alexander Street Press, etc.  Other licensed digital content  Full text  eJournal Metadata  A&I data  Other free content  MBooks Phase III +Phase II External Digital Content (Q2, 2009)

15. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Phased Plan Primo WorldCat MALC LAW CRLIUSB Archives Latino Studies Fulltext A&I MBooksOthers Phase IPhase IIPhase III Deep Search Adapter

16. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame  Use Aleph X-Services, NCIP to source ILS systems  Aleph, Millenium, Unicorn integration using Primo  Direct consortial borrowing  Leverage smaller campus collections  Redirect some ILL throughout consortia  Cooperative collection development Universal Borrowing in Primo

17. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame

18. Primo as Common Framework* Model *based on California Digital Library Common Framework Common Publishing Platform Interface 1 …….. Catalog Data OAI API …….. Other Resource Database Metasearch Interface 2 Interface n Interface 3 Interface 4

19. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Expansion of Services Common Publishing Platform Interface 1 …….. Catalog Data OAI API …….. Other Resource Database Metasearch Interface 2 Interface n Interface 3 Interface 4 Download Collaborate Translate Edit Define Word More

20. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Other Possibilities  Search  All newspapers interface  All image collections (local and commercial)  Enhancements  Augment records with metadata from Ulrich’s and JAKE

21. © 2009 Hesburgh Libraries of Notre Dame Thank You Next Presentation