1. 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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. KBART Automation: The KnowledgeBase vendor perspective

15. 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