1. Programs and research The network reconfigures discovery: the importance of disclosure Lorcan Dempsey Ohio State University Library 2.0 Conference 14 June 2007 Columbus, Oh

2. From home to here ….

3. Network user environment institutional operating environment

4. Part 1: Network use environment Part 2: Operational environment Part 3: Discovery and disclosure. The example of the catalog

5. Part 1: The network use environment This is short because you have already heard a lot of this

7. Getting things done Workflow

8. Brand is the new real estate

9. The rich get richer

10. Libraries will need to plan for and build services that fit new researcher work habits, with an emphasis on the flexibility and remixing of their content and services. …. … In this study we paid some attention to the new world of informal peer-to-peer communication within the research community. The findings are that researchers are adopting social network technologies very fast and so far they have done so on their own: the library has effectively been bypassed. Researchers use of academic libraries and their services. Swan A and Brown S

11. Starting an information search Only 2% of college students start their search at a library Web site. Respondents were asked to indicate, from a list of 16 electronic resources, which they typically use to begin an information search. Among total respondents, 84% of information searches begin with a search engine and 1% begin at a library Web site. College Students

12. Trustworthiness of library sources vs. search engines Over half (53%) of college students indicate a similar trust of search engines as with library resources.

13. Chris Beckett http://www.scholinfo.com/presentations/2006/8/10/the-new-world-order-in-collection-development-the-commercial-perspective.html

14. The long tail Impact? Systemwide efficiences Aggregation of supply Unified discovery Low transaction costs Aggregation of demand Mobilize users Brand

15. Database > Website > F low

16. Then: the user built their workflow around the library Now: the library must build its service around the user workflow Get in the flow

17. Then: resources were scarce and attention was abundant Now: attention is scarce and resources are abundant Compete for attention

18. Then: people consumed information resources Now: people construct digital identities online: gather, create, share Website > workflow

19. Part 2: The library operational environment This is shortish because I don’t have a lot of time

20. library Consumer environments Management environment Licensed Bought Faculty& students Digitized Aggregations Resource sharing … Institutional Workflow Portals, CMS, IR, … Personal Workflow RSS, toolbars,.. Network level workflow Google, … Integrated local user environment? Library web presence Resource sharing, …

21. Part 3: From discovery to disclosure Let’s limit this to the catalog so that we can get away soon

22.  Local Discovery Environments  Shared Discovery Environments  Syndicated Discovery Environments  Leveraged Discovery Environments Remember: focus on catalog Require disclosure

23. Local Discovery environment  Some (not necessarily aligned) motivations  Make data work harder  Integrate access to locally managed resources  Escape from ILS limitations  NCSU  Rochester  SOLR  Worldcat 2.0  Primo  Encore …

24. Making data work harder: simple search followed by rich navigation and participation

25. Glancability

26. Some remarks  How does MARC data play with other data  Subjects, authors,..  Historic investment in structure?  Duplicate cost?  Relationship to Metasearch?

27. Shared discovery environment  Increase impact  Create gravitational pull  Aggregate demand and supply  Reduce costs

30. Some comments  Integration of discovery to delivery becoming essential  A move to shared environments seems more likely with increased ability to ‘view’ different levels  Increased gravitational pull: greater use of collections  Growing evidence

31. Syndicated discovery experience  Syndicate data or service or links

35. They found that Google is responsible for referring 56% of the users of HighWire journals, and our own study shows that over 70% of researchers use it routinely to find scholarly content. Moreover, web search engine referrals also appear to account for the vast majority of accesses to institutional repositories. Van Orsdel L C and Born K Researchers use of academic libraries and their services. Swan A and Brown S

37. Syndicating services  RSS  Portlets  APIs, Protocol-based  Projects  Sakailibrary  … Not as rapid as one might expect?

39. Susan Hollar - Inside the Course at Michigan Diane Dallis - Inside the Course at IndianaInside the Course at Michigan Inside the Course at Indiana Sakaibrary: Michigan Indiana

40. Some remarks  Syndication of data now common among data providers  Routing issue for non-unique materials  Resolution  Worldcat  Libraries exposing licensed content holdings interesting  Google Scholar

41.  Service disclosure less common  APIs  Web services  Portlets  HTML fragments – ‘search boxes’  Toolbars  Widgets, extensions, …

42. The Leveraged discovery experience  In some ways the most interesting  Use another discovery service to connect back to your resources  Compare to the situation with article databases and resolvers

46. Some remarks  Some of these are toy-like now, but indicate a direction  Increased capacity to ‘sense’ structure (microformats) will improve ability.

47. So ….  The library website is not the front door  We need to connect multiple discovery environments to library fulfilment options  We need to put library resources in users’ workflow  We need to place library resources in places which aggregate demand