数字资源的国际标准与数字馆藏管理The International Standards of Digital Content and

Digital Collection Management

Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co.,Ltd.Bejing

柯春晓 Steven Ke

Self Introduction

柯春晓 Steven Ke

8 years working for CNKI & Overseas Marketing Development 在 CNKI 工作 8 年，一直负责海外市场开拓

Focus on Chinese Digital Content Delivering globally 一直研究并实践中文数字内容“走出去”问题

Ph.D Candidate of Peking University, Economics 北京大学经济学院在读博士

Master of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Information Sciences 中科院硕士毕业，信息管理专业

CNKI Introduction

• Key project of national information construction 国家重点信息化建设项目

• Built the most comprehensive system of China academic knowledge resources—China Integrated Knowledge Resources Database

建成了完整的以学术文献为核心的《中国知识资源总库》

• Over 90% of China Knowledge resources with comprehensive coverage of journals, dissertations, newspapers, proceedings, yearbooks, reference works, encyclopedia, patents, standards, S&T achievements and laws & regulations

囊括了中国 90% 以上的知识信息资源

Over 1300 institutional customers overseas in 43 countries and regions and 6 million end users1300 家海外大型机构用户，分布在 43 个国家和地区， 600 万终端读者

CNKI Introduction

Outline• 从一片经典的学术论文说起 ——背景 Beginning with a classical article( background )• 存在的问题和解决思路 Problems & Solution• 中国知网的观点和实践 CNKI’S Opintion & Practice

Discovery Provider

• EDS (EBSCO)

•SUMMON (Serials solutions)

• Primo central (Ex Libris)

• WorldCat (OCLC)

• CNKI Scholar(CNKI)

• DUXIU(Super Star)。。。。。。

Full-text Content Provider

• Elsevier

• Springer

•JSTOR

•American Psychological

Association (APA)

•American Physical Society

•American Chemical Society。。。。。。

Students

END USERS

Faculties Academic Dean Scientists

Engineers

•Harvard University Library

•Tsinghua University Library

•The University of HongKong

Library

• Shanghai Library

• Sydney University Library

。。。。。。

Libraries

•Harvard University Library

•Tsinghua University Library

•The University of HongKong

Library

• Shanghai Library

• Sydney University Library

。。。。。。

A&I Content Provider

Government OfficialThink Tank

Supply Content

Relationship ,Difficulties, Dilemma, transparency, competitiveness, Standards, Future

The Consultants I invited from this article

Bruce HeterickVP for outreach and participation services,JSTOR and Portico

Jenny WalkerDirector of strategic initiatives, Ex Libris

Marshall BreedingOpen Discovery Initiative (ODI) cochair

John LawVP of discovery services,Serial Solutions

Bonnie LawlorExecutive director, National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS)

Linda BeebeSenior director, PsycINFO

Thank you very much for my relief troops( 救兵 ).

Background

•They are changing the service model of library, even the whole industry;

• It is really a great progress compare with previous separated database searching;

•There is great hope that these rapidly maturing products will provide a fast, single point of entry to an institution’s relevant and vetted scholarly content.

Background• Many academic and research libraries are making significant

investments BUT still imperfectly understood;

• Libraries, content providers, and discovery service vendors—cannot even agree on a common vocabulary to describe what they do;

• Uncertainty about complex issues, such as resource coverage, depth and breadth of indexing, relevance rankings, and usage reporting ；

• Two groups have begun to explore in earnest best practices for this complex genre of software ；

• Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) set by National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

• National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS)

Background

VS

Resource coverage and indexing

• LIBRARIANS expect that the large central index that underpins discovery services will maximize awareness and usage of the library’s entire collection, particularly for electronic subscriptions;

• LIBRARIANS find it difficult to measure how much of the content they subscribe to is covered by a given central index and how deeply any included content has been indexed.

• Many researchers express concerns about the lack of visibility for what content is included in the central index.

• Whether the included content has been indexed using full text, subject headings, an abstract, or some other metadata.

• Transparency for both breadth and depth of content is necessary to provide critical information for both librarians evaluating which tools are best for their researchers and for the researchers evaluating which available tool should be used to answer a particular question

Laura Morse manager of library technology

• LIBRARIANS often analyze a discovery service after implementation, but “it’s also important to have adequate information in advance to help select the best one for their environment.”

• The depth and frequency of indexing can “make a dramatic difference” in results

Jeff Penka, portfolio director for end user services at OCLC

It’s a valid concern, from the beginning,OCLC have tried to be transparent to our members about the content available through our discovery service, WorldCat Local.

• Serials Solutions, for example, provides a list of serials titles available in Summon that is a PDF more than 4000 pages long.

• “It’s all there, it’s all very transparent, but is it practical?” says Law

• Law agreed that the variety of formats used to describe coverage makes it very difficult for librarians to compare competing services.

Problems & Solution to Libraries VS Discovery Provider

• Part of the problem is enormousness as well as transparency;• The sheer size of Web-scale discovery products makes it difficult

to evaluate their coverage;• Each vendor provides slightly different information and formats it

differently, making comparison among providers tricky;

Nara Newcomer,an assistant music librarian at East Carolina University

All three constituencies (librarians, publishers, and service providers)—for a common means for defining and describing coverage reporting.-------John Law

Background

VS VS VS

Questions of neutrality

• Competitive dynamics can make striking such a balance difficult;

• ProQuest (the parent of Serials Solutions) and EBSCO both provide discovery services and content resources;

• Neither one contributes their A&I products to the other’s discovery service;

• Ex Libris is impacted even more, since neither EBSCO nor ProQuest contribute to Ex Libris’s Primo Central index;

• Leading to the problem of both having to cover that material in other ways in their discovery service.

• Content providers are handing over content for indexing purposes without really understanding the impact on usage, the indexing itself, the relevance algorithms;

• The question of whether vendors favor their own content was something that needed to be addressed publicly.

Tim Collins, president of EBSCO Publishing

Problems of Discovery Providers Competitiveness

Neutrality

Background

VS

Usage statisticsRelevance rankings

• The discovery vendors do provide usage statistics, but the formats vary from vendor to vendor and may not give certain content providers adequate credit for their contributions;

• Libraries rarely have the granular usage data needed to understand and evaluate user workflows to see the impact that a discovery service is having on usage;

Bruce HeterickVP for outreach and participation services,JSTOR and Portico

• What portion of the library’s resources can be attributed to the discovery service versus other channels, such as Google Scholar;

• A key issue is to be able to measure usage that not only can be attributed to the discovery service but also tracked to the content component that triggers a user’s access;

Marshall BreedingOpen Discovery Initiative (ODI) cochair

• The transparency needs extend to relevance rankings with such factors as the overall size of the index, the ability to easily include local library collections and the user interface;

• Content providers and librarians both expressed the hope that more information about the “flavors” of each service’s relevance algorithm would become available;

Problems & Solution to Content Providers VS Discovery Provider

• ODI should help establish “a framework of value across all parties.”

• “That will give libraries, publishers, aggregators, and discovery service providers a common way to measure both exposure and access;

• the absence of a common vocabulary may be as important a consideration as the lack of transparency;

Jeff Penka, portfolio director for end user services at OCLC

Background

A&I Content Provider VS

There are 61 A&I providers that are members of NFAIS. A minority of pure A&I providers participate in discovery.

They often take much care to create subject-specific indexing terms, based upon proprietary thesauri and bibliographic rules;

Their content is provided via sophisticated search interfaces that these A&I providers say offer more versatile features as well as more precise and thorough results than any discovery service.

Many A&I providers fear adding their bibliographic databases to the services, which could threaten their lifeblood.

Solution to A&I Providers VS Discovery Provider

• Part of the ODI group’s work will be to foster a better business environment.

• The model of index-based discovery should not subvert the interests of any of the stakeholders;

Marshall BreedingOpen Discovery Initiative (ODI) cochair

• Combined efforts of NISO and NFAIS may help dispel some of the difficulties and tensions;

• ODI will provide a forum for discussion, identify best practices, and develop a common framework that will support maximum value to all involved;

AT LAST, FINALY

• Yes, Standards of

Usage statistics Relevance rankings Transparency Neutrality Even the business model

All Stakeholders should contribute to finish this STANDARDIZING dream.

BUT• How to contribute?• How long it will take to realize?• Who will lead to balance the interest?• Are our users enough patient to wait this dream come true

since there are so many sexy discovery tool outside?

My Opintion

• Google style discovery is good but not enough to academic research;• Real scientific research is impossible only based on this simple textbox;• The more complex research project, the less capabilities it shows.

For End Users

• If the discovery system could solve all the service problems based on that one stop search, libraries would become database buyer;

• Moreover, there are still so many difficulties above to become an excellent buyer.

• They need to evaluate their investment and keep their professional knowledge service.

For Libraries

• They need a motivation or business rule to make more information available and standard.

For Discovery Provider

For Content Provider

• There must be a model which can make them more comfortable and relieved to provide as much content as possible.

• They need to control what they provided and how they works in discovery system.

My thinking• 基本模式为 :• 行业或学科新闻网 + （行业知识库 + 机构资源库） + 机构知识管理与服务平

台

• Basic Model:• Subject based information gateways +(Industry or subject knowledge

databases + institutional repository ) + Discovery service platform

• Subject based information gateways• Academic views, ideas, methods, strategies and countermeasures of scholars

issued on important academic journals and newspapers; • The brief introduction and book review of important monograph published.• 重要学术期刊、报纸刊发的学者群对行业宏观问题的学术观点、思想、方法，战略与对策建议；学者发表

的重要行业专著的简介与书评。

NBS （ National Building Specification ）

• The subject librarians can design new ideas, new contents and new concepts on the gateway by subject through analyzing the contents they subscribed and requirement from departments;

• 学科图书馆员可以通过分析自己订购的内容和院校要求，分学科 将新观点、新内容、新概念展示在门户上；

• The content providers can recommend relate subjects to libraries (by keywords and hot topics);• 内容提供商可以为图书馆做主题推荐（通过关键词、主题词）；

• The new idea, concepts, achievement , topic etc. are linking to discovery systems by the keywords for searching more information;

• 图书馆设置的这些模块，直接通过关键词在发现系统中检索；

• The end users can browse the latest academic news, dynamic research trend timely through the professional keywords recommended in addition to searching by himself .

• 终端学者及时浏览最新动态，且不在为选择专业的关键词发愁；

Industry or subject knowledge databases• It is a thematic database facing to a certain industry or certain subject, subdivided by

knowledge needs, which can provide special knowledge service to different people.• 面向某一行业或某一学科专题数据库，按知识需求层次进行细分，为不同人群提供专项

知识服务

• The discovery system should allow libraries set the knowledge navigation on which the subject database can be created dynamically, in order to meet personalized service of the libraries or department

• 发现工具必须允许图书馆自行设置，并动态生成符合本机构特点专题数据库，以满足图书馆个性化服务；

• It can realize to statistics any paper from any database provided by any supplier technically.• 技术上实现，可以统计任何一个知识库中的任何一篇文献来自任何一个具体的内容提供

商；

Institutional Repository• The libraries may share their IR resources to the discovery system on their

own;• 图书馆可自愿将本机构的 IR 资源共享 给发现系统；

• The discovery system can set up search in the library, or open to the public.

• 发现系统可设置本机构检索还是公开给馆外使用。

Discovery service platform

• Just as easy as summon, EDS, Primo central, WorldCat

You are welcome to join us the annual conference of CDPDL hosted by the library of HKU, Tsinghua University library, Shandong University library and CNKI.

July 3-7,2014, Jinan