1. Amy Kautzman UCB Patti Martin CDL
Pathway to the Future: Library Bibliographic Services for the 21st Century
Amy Kautzman UCB
Patti Martin CDL

2. University of California Overview
10 Campuses
10 ILS (Endeavor, ExLibris, III, home grown)
Melvyl (UC union catalog)
Shared Cataloging Program

3. A Wake-Up Call
“Our users expect simplicity and immediate reward and Amazon, Google, and iTunes are the standards against which we are judged.”

4. Things are not ok
“The current Library catalog is poorly designed for the tasks of finding, discovering, and selecting the growing set of resources available in our libraries …”
“We offer a fragmented set of systems to search for published information …”

5. Increased recognition that:
Bibliographic systems are the foundation of library services
Metadata is valuable and strategic
Libraries are filled with undiscoverable yet extremely valuable material
Examples to learn from: OCLC WorldCat, RedLightGreen, NCSU’s new catalog, etc.

6. The Time is Right
“The combined effect of these pressures suggests that the time has come to thoroughly review library bibliographic services and practices, workflows, and technologies”
UC University Librarians appoint Bibliographic Services Task Force, April 2005

7. The Charge (simplified and shortened)
Inventory the middleware, workflow and processes involved
Identify the problems that need to be solved
Develop a vision and design principles for a new bibliographic services environment
Identify potential actions
Deliver a report with recommendations and priorities

8. Bibliographic Services Task Force
John Riemer, (Chair, UCLA)
Head, Cataloging and Metadata Center
Luc Declerck (UCSD)
Associate Univ. Librarian, Technology and Technical Services
Amy Kautzman (UCB)
Head of Research and Collections: Doe/Moffitt Libraries
Patti Martin (CDL)
Bibliographic Services Manager
Terry Ryan (UCLA)
Associate University Librarian for the UCLA Electronic Library

9. In the (almost) Beginning

10. Thanks to MARC
01291nam a 4500
s2004 enk b
001 0 eng
010   $a
020   $a (alk. paper)
035   $a (Sirsi) i
040   $a DLC $c DLC $d DLC $d OrLoB-B
042   $a pcc
049   $x jek
05000 $a BS651 $b .S
08200 $a 213 $   $a Shanks, Niall, $d 1959-
24510 $a God, the devil, and Darwin : $b a critique of intelligent design theory / $c Niall Shanks.
260   $a Oxford ; $a New York : $b Oxford University Press, $c 2004.
300   $a xiii, 273 p. ; $c 22 cm.
504   $a Includes bibliographical references (p ) and index.
50500 $t Foreword / $r Richard Dawkins -- $t Introduction: The Many Designs of the Intelligent Design Movement -- $g 1. $t The Evolution of Intelligent Design Arguments -- $g 2. $t Darwin and the Illusion of Intelligent Design -- $g 3. $t Thermodynamics and the Origins of Order -- $g 4. $t Science and the Supernatural -- $g 5. $t The Biochemical Case for Intelligent Design -- $g 6. $t The Cosmological Case for Intelligent Design -- $t Conclusion: Intelligent Designs on Society.
596   $a 1

11. The Library ILS

15. Course Management Systems

20. Examples of Libraries Moving into the Future

27. Enhancing Search and Retrieval
Provide users with direct access to item
Provide recommender features
Support customization/personalization
Offer alternative actions for failed searches
Spelling
Suggestions for no results

28. Cont. Offer better navigation of large sets of research results
Deliver bibliographic services where the users are
Course management systems, campus portals
Expose metadata to search engines
Provide relevance ranking and leverage full-text

29. And now, looking behind the curtain …

30. Rearchitecting the OPAC
Create a single catalog interface for all UC
Support searching across the entire bibliographic space

31. Adopting New Cataloging Practices
Rearchitect cataloging workflow
Select the appropriate metadata scheme
Manually enrich metadata in important areas
Automate metadata creation

32. Resuscitate Metadata Metadata matters Make metadata work harder
Avoid complexity that doesn’t add value
Add more metadata to support better services

33. Metadata is more than MARC
MARC, Dublin Core, VRA Core, METS
TOCs, book reviews, abstracts
User comments, folksonomies, added information
Data mining of full text, records of use, relationships

34. Make Metadata Work Together
ONIX & MARC
DUBLIN CORE & VRA
MARC & User Tags

35. Work Smarter Adopt metadata created elsewhere
Create and maintain records in one place
Move from shared cataloging to collaborative cataloging
Focus on being good enough instead of perfect
Generate more management information

36. The Report Strikes a Chord
Strong interest within the University of California
Immediate community reaction
Report hit the blogs
Interviews by the Library press
Invitations to present at conferences
Guest lectures at library schools

37. Lita Blog: January 26 2006 KG Schneider
“If there is one meta-trend I am seeing right now, it is this: librarians are getting frisky. We’re talking back, questioning authority, and in some cases taking names and kicking booty, as Andrew Pace did recently with the NCSU catalog (Andrew, can we call your OPAC “Miss Piggy”?) and as the UC system did with its must-read, put-this-under-your-pillow, OMG-this-is-hot BSTF Report.

38. Why the Buzz? Report gives voice to some popular opinions
Our services must be user driven
Our services need to be delivered where the users are
Libraries need to act boldly if we are to reclaim our role in the information space
Libraries still have a unique value-add to offer

39. Why the Buzz? Report gives voice to some controversial perspectives
Our assumptions about metadata should be re-examined
Metadata practices need to have proven value
An intuitive interface is not by definition “dumbed down” or anti-scholarly

40. Why the buzz? Report challenges current practices
Our catalogs are poorly designed
Our bibliographic systems are fragmented
Our bibliographic data dispersed
Our workflows are cumbersome
Work is duplicated

41. Campuses and UC committee feedback was due by March 31, 2006
What Next?
Campuses and UC committee feedback was due by March 31, 2006
Four questions
Which 3-5 recommendations are most important?
Which specific recommendations should we do first?
Are there any recommendations to add?
Are there any recommendations we should NOT pursue?

42. Preliminary UC Feedback: Popular recommendations
I. Enhancing Search and Retrieval
I.1 Direct access to item
I.4 Offer alternatives for failed searches
I.5 Better navigation of large result sets
I.6 Deliver services where the users are
I.8 Better searching for non-Roman

43. Preliminary UC Feedback: Popular recommendations
II. Re-architecting the OPAC
II.1 Single catalog interface for all of UC
II.2 Search across the entire info space
III. Adopting New Cataloging Practices
III.1 Re-architect cataloging workflow

44. Preliminary UC Feedback: Recommendations we love to hate
III.2.c Consider abandoning controlled
vocabulary for topical subjects
III.1.a Option 2: consolidate cataloging
into one or two centers across
the state

45. Surprises? Not really
Intelligent & well-intentioned people can disagree
Not all agree that change is urgent or we’re doomed
All agree that we need to preserve our values while changing practices, but not all agree on what is a value and what is a practice

46. Surprises? Not really
Recommendations are difficult to discuss in the abstract
Many of the underlying concepts are not well understood without explanation
Many can’t endorse a recommendation if they don’t know how it will be funded
Many are skeptical about the feasibility of accomplishing the recommendations

47. Surprises? Not really
People have trouble moving beyond their expectations of current systems
Many look at the examples that illustrate concepts and think the change will look the same
Many assume we will implement with the same technology and/or the same organization

48. Surprises! Fear of making the system “too easy”
“If they don’t need to ask us how to use it, we lose a teachable moment”
“If the system looks like Google, the rich diversity of our collections is lost”
Belief that only undergraduates are demanding change
“Undergraduates need an easy system but true scholars like to see the complexity”

49. Surprises!
Fear that the new system envisioned will offer less flexibility than our current systems
“A Google-like search box may work fine if you just need a few good things, but won’t support scholarly research”
“Our users and collections are too diverse to be served by a single solution.”

50. Next Steps: Moving from vision to decision
Apr Analyze feedback and provide
report to the University Librarians
Jun University Librarians decide on
actions
Jul Task Force reconvenes to develop
action plans