1. Cambridge University Library New interfaces The future of the OPAC at Cambridge Ed Chamberlain – Systems Librarian, University Library

2. Cambridge University Library Overview Problems with current OPAC We are not alone – how others feel Wither the OPAC ? New data standards Resource discovery platforms

3. Cambridge University Library Background Systems Librarian at the UL for the past 9 months… Worked on the Newton ‘facelift’ Very frustrated by the lack of options for customisation Limited in how we could meet people’s expectations for a new OPAC Became aware of issues beyond the interface…

4. Cambridge University Library

6. Newton / Webvoyage No new LMS migration for sometime Nothing on market to justify pain of migration Out of all of the Voyager components, the OPAC is the one showing its age the most

7. Cambridge University Library Problems with the current OPAC 1 ) Architecture Several separate databases comprising Voyager Greater administrative overhead for ESS staff Cause problems with any future systems migration Universal Catalogue is ineffective at integrating the separate record sets and providing consistently accurate results

8. Cambridge University Library Problems with the current OPAC 2) Interface quality Does not meet modern web standards Lack of customisation options Outdated conceptions about search workflows Unable to easily share records and data with other systems (Marc + Z39.50, no XML)

9. Cambridge University Library Problems with the current OPAC 3) Digital material Libraries are now providing non-bibliographic resources alongside traditional material: –ejournals –ebooks –Reference and a&i databases –DSpace holdings Metadata held and accessed in separate ‘silo’s’

10. Cambridge University Library We are not alone – how others feel Voyager users Other Voyager users report similar issues with their OPAC’s Expecting a new OPAC two years ago… Delayed by the Ex-Libris / Endeavor merger Due as part of Voyager 7

11. Cambridge University Library Voyager 7 update New version of Webvoyage as part of Voyager 7 Unlikely to be anything radically different Hope for better quality interface Problems with multiple databases, duplicate records and record quality will still be present …

12. Cambridge University Library We are not alone – how others feel Other system users Of 66 survey respondents: –51 respondents do not love their OPACs, some expressing frustration or even outright hostility –Four respondents do love their OPACs –Six are neutral - XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007 http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf

13. Cambridge University Library We are not alone – how others feel Other system users The top issues expressed in these complaints were… –Difficulty of customization (42 instances) –Inadequacy of search functions (31 instances) –Opacity of results and lack of grouping or faceting (27 instances) –Limitations of the user interface (16 instances) –Lack of Web 2.0 functionality (9 instances) –Backend problems (8 instances) –Lack of integration with databases or other systems (8 instances) - XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007 http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf

14. Cambridge University Library Wither the OPAC ? OPACS have fallen ‘behind the times’ Less relevant alongside e-resource platforms Highly structured – 2-3 levels of screens to get to results Users expect search results within one click Expect spellchecking, error messages, better help

15. Cambridge University Library New data container standards MARC is old (40+ years) Inefficient and unfriendly means to store data Rest of the world uses XML – (MARC-XML, MODS)

16. Cambridge University Library

17. New data content standards Resource Description and Access (RDA) Functional requirements for bibliographic records (FRBR) Semantic web technologies – (RDF)

18. Cambridge University Library Resource Discovery Platforms Growth of Resource Discovery Platforms Separate platform for metadata De-couple front end from the backend management system

19. Cambridge University Library Resource Discovery Platforms Single point of search for a library Encompass and amalgamate data from: –Multiple LMS catalogues (Voyager) –ERM interfaces and knowledge bases (SFX, Metasearch) –Local repositories (Dspace)

20. Cambridge University Library Resource discovery platforms Interface The ‘Google generation’ expects keyword searching Keyword based searching using traditionally created records – argued that this gives a ‘best of both worlds’ fit

21. Cambridge University Library Products on the market Primo by Ex Libris Prism 3 from Talis Encore from III Aquabrowser from Vubis (formerly GEAC) Endeca information platform

22. Cambridge University Library Problems Potentially difficult to argue a funding case for, should this functionality not be part of an LMS anyway ? Data problems still remain – and would hamper any migration to a new LMS itself, let alone a new interface

23. Cambridge University Library Data problems Only solves the multiple database problem for the users New interfaces exposes old problems with data Presentation of bib records alongside data from A&I databases – risk of ‘swamping results’

24. Cambridge University Library What next ? For us… Continue to support and develop Newton where feasible Track and investigate all options for a replacement interface encompassing all library materials in Cambridge

25. Cambridge University Library What next ? For you… Think about our consortia model Data over container - i.e. AACR2 over MARC How it would sit alongside non-MARC data

26. Cambridge University Library Thank you Ed Chamberlain - emc59@cam.ac.uk