NISO’s IOTA Working GroupImproving OpenURLs Through Analytics

UKSG ConferenceHarrogate, United Kingdom

April 4 – 6, 2011 

Rafal Kasprowski, Rice University

Agenda• In the Beginning: Full-text linking and Advent of OpenURL

 • IOTA: Created in response to OpenURL linking problems

 • IOTA’s analytical approach

 • Community-derived reports comparing quality of vendor

OpenURLs • Concept of the OpenURL Quality Index

• IOTA & KBART: relationship & joint initiative • Community involvement in IOTA: necessary for best outcomes

Before OpenURL: Proprietary Linking

 • A&I database providers offered option for full-text linking

(e.g., CSA, PubMed, etc.) . • Libraries manually activated linking to full-text providers

they had subscriptions with.  • A&I --> Full Text

 

Proprietary Linking: Cons and Pro

• Linking had to be activated manually by libraries for each full-text provider.

 • A&I providers offering this option were few.

 • Selection of full-text providers was limited.

 But... •  Once set up, the static links to full texts were

accurate.

Advent of OpenURL

• Objective: Deliver full texts unrestrained by proprietary silos. • Open standard generating link at time of request.

 • Library's holdings indicate provider of "appropriate copy".

 • A-Z list (e.g., e-journal, e-books):

o Knowledge base (KB) with library's holdings.o Intermediary in linking.

 • A&I ("Source") --> A-Z list ("KB") --> Full Text ("Target")

A, Bernand, et al. "A versatile nanotechnology to connect individual nano-objects for the fabrication of hybrid single-electron devices." Nanotechnology 21, no. 44 (November 5, 2010): 445201. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2010).

OpenURL Syntax and Resolver

http://ps4ps6lm2r.search.serialssolutions.com/?issn=0957-4484&volume=21&issue=44&date=20101105&spage=445201&title=Nanotechnology&atitle=A+ versatile+nanotechnology+to+connect+individual+nano-objects+for+the+ fabrication+of+hybrid+single-electron+devices.&aulast=A++Bernand

Source Citation

Target OpenURL (Source OpenURL structured similarly)

Pros & Cons of OpenURL

Pros:• KB/Resolver vendors took over most of the linking setup:

Less work for libraries and providers.• Participation by A&I platforms and full-text providers

exceeded proprietary linking: OpenURL scales better Cons:• Dynamic linking less predictable than static linking: more

difficult to pinpoint cause of link failures• OpenURL linking not improved significantly last 10

years.• No systematic method exists to benchmark OpenURLs.

Problem Statement & Methodology"72% of respondents to the online survey either agreed or strongly agreed that a significant problem for link resolvers is the generation of incomplete or inaccurate OpenURLs by databases (for example, A&I products)."Culling, James. 2007. Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain: Final Project Report for UKSG, p.33. http://www.uksg.org/sites/uksg.org/files/uksg_link_resolvers_final_report.pdf.

   Recently, researchers have indicated the need for metadata quality metrics, including:• completeness;• accuracy;• conformance to expectations;• logical consistency and coherence.

Bruce, Thomas R. and Hillmann, Diane I. 2004. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice. Ed. Diane I. Hillmann and Elaine L. Westbrooks. Chicago: American Library Association, pp. 238-256.

Année philologique OpenURL Study

2008 Cornell study led by Adam Chandler*• Problem: Too often links sent from Aph did not

successfully resolve to requested resource.• Objective: Examine quality of OpenURLs offered to

users by Aph in order to improve the linking. Aph Study investigated:• Faulty citation metadata from source database.• Method to evaluate the OpenURLs.

*Chandler, Adam. 2009. Results of L’Année philologique online OpenURL Quality Investigation: Mellon Planning Grant Final Report.http://metadata.library.cornell.edu/oq/files/200902%20lannee-mellonreport-openurlquality-final.pdf.

Scoring System & Aph Study OutcomesConcept of scoring in Aph study (based on B. Hughes study)*• establish a baseline for comparison; • results to be shared with data providers;• develop a best practice.

 Problem analysis in Aph study limited to: • source link• presence/absence of citation metadata elements

 Results:• OpenURL quality model: compares elements in Aph

OpenURLs to those of other providers.• No scores, but model is first step towards scoring system.*Hughes, Baden. 2004. Metadata Quality Evaluation: Experience from the Open Language Archives Community. In Digital Libraries: International Collaboration and Cross-Fertilization. Ed. Zhaoneng Chen et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 320-329.

Creation of IOTA

NISO accepts proposal to take Aph Study to wider community• Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics (IOTA):

o Formed in January 2010. Basic Assumptions:• Results are achieved through an analytical investigation of

how OpenURL links work.• Practical: Not OpenURL standard is addressed, but links

(OpenURLs) generated by standard.• Selective changes to OpenURLs will lead to significant

improvement in linking success rate.o Motto: "small changes. big improvements"

Desired Outcomes

• Produce qualitative reports that will help OpenURL providers quickly compare their OpenURL quality to that of their peers.

• Develop community-recognized index for measuring the quality of OpenURL links generated by content providers.

  • Method:

o fair;o transparent;o scalable across all OpenURLs and their providers.

Why are OpenURL reports important?

Content providers can submit their OpenURL data:

– Compare their OpenURL data with other vendors;

Institutions can submit their OpenURL data:

– See how OpenURLs from providers work and make local adjustments to their OpenURL setup

Third parties can use IOTA’s OpenURL data:

– E.g. link resolver vendors, web-scale discovery system vendors can use reports to adjust their OpenURL linking;

Running reports

Reports: Log file providers

Report: source (vendor or database)

Report: selecting source = vendor

Report: element, source = vendor

Report: pattern, source = vendor

Report: element, source = database

Report: pattern, source = database

Report: element and pattern frequency

Report: element & pattern frequency - selecting vendor

Report: element/pattern frequency: Choosing Metric

Report: element/pattern by vendor

Report: element & pattern frequency - selecting dbase

Report: element/pattern by database

Reporting System: current improvements

Consolidating variant instances of databases and vendors if the same;

Separating article-like requests from book-like requests

– Either/Or situation: most resources do not offer both formats

– Once separation is completed, users will be given corresponding options to select OpenURL data by format:ARTICLE or BOOK

OpenURL Quality Index: initial version

1. Core elements:• Any element contained in IOTA's OpenURL reporting system;• 10M OpenURLs already obtained from libraries content providers.

 2. Scoring system based on assumption:• Correlation exists between

o # of core elements ("OpenURL completeness") & o ability of OpenURLs to link to specific content.

  3.  Weighting assigned to core elements:• Based on relative importance

o spage vs atitleo issn vs jtitleo doi/pmid vs date, etc.

OpenURL Quality Index: vendor rating

Work in Progress• Element weighting still in progress:

o E.g., importance of identifiers (doi, pmid) vs bibliographic data (issn, volume, spage).

 • Currently, IOTA focuses on OpenURLs from citation

sources only. OpenURL quality is also influenced by:o knowledge base,o resolver,o full-text provider (target).

 • High "completeness" score of OpenURLs not always

indicative of "success" in linking to full textso Combination of multiple indexes along linking nodes may provide

more complete picture.

IOTA & KBART: related through OpenURL

IOTA node:

– analyzing data sent from OpenURL source to link resolver.

KBART node:

– creating formatting best practices for data sent from content providers to knowledge base (and link resolver) vendors.

KBART/IOTA joint initiative: underway

KBART/IOTA node:

– Exploring together the third source of failures:

link-to (or target) syntax and behavior which couples link resolvers to content providers

Collaboration begun in March 2011 is meant to address OpenURL quality in a broader context.

How can I get involved?

If you are a content provider:

• Contribute data to IOTA• Review the IOTA data • This data is meant to help make improvements in your

OpenURL linking. If you are a librarian:

• Contribute data to IOTA• Help spread the word to vendors

IOTA web presence

Questions? http://openurlquality.niso.org

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/openurlquality

@nisoiota on twitter

Rafal KasprowskiElectronic Resources LibrarianRice UniversityFondren Library MS 44Houston, TX 77005 USArk11@rice.edu