BHL: Assigning DOIs & Other Identifiers to Legacy Literature

10.5962/BHL:)tle.24947 10.5962/bhl.)tle.55495ASS IGNING /bh l .) t l e . 35182 10.5962/bhl .DOIs .16580&10.5962/bhl.)tle.OTHER/IDENTIFIERS .20698 10.5962/bhl.)tle.TO10.5962/bhl.)tle.34905 10.LEGACY.LITERATURE10.5962 /bh l .)t le .17497 10 .5962/bh l .)t le .3 8 1 8 2 1 0 . 5 9 6 2 / b h l . ) t l e . 3 7 0 5 8

Chris Freeland Technical Director, Biodiversity Heritage Library

Director, Center for Biodiversity Informa)cs, Missouri Botanical Garden

@chrisfreeland

About Biodiversity Heritage Library

•  Interna)onal consor)um of the world’s leading natural history libraries

•  Funded to digi)ze books & journals in the public domain @BioDivLibrary

Freeland. ALA Midwinter. 21 Jan 2012. @chrisfreeland #bhlib #alamw12

Purpose of exercise

•  Make legacy scien)fic literature citable via modern systems – Make 250+ years of scholarly communica)ons available via new tools

•  Assign contemporary iden)fiers to legacy literature – DOI –  ISBN –  ISSN


Iden)fy the Iden)fiers •  Digital Object Iden)fier (DOI) –  Resolvable iden)fier for a digital object –  Register through an agency: CrossRef is popular

•  Provides cita)on metrics, reference linking –  Co$t

•  Interna)onal Standard Book Number (ISBN) – US Agency for registra)on: Bowker –  Co$t

•  Interna)onal Standard Serial Number (ISSN) – US assignments: Library of Congress –  Free


DOI, ISBN, ISSN, ei, ei,…uh oh…

•  Ran into trouble with each agency – BHL isn’t a publisher – BHL is a consor)um, not a separate legal en)ty – BHL doesn’t own all the content it serves – “We know we need a policy on that…”

…and on…and on…for more than 3 years… CrossRef DOIs: path of least resistance


Challenge: Title Matching for Uniqueness

•  Only want 1 DOI per intellectual, citable unit •  Differences between cataloging & publishing – Libraries:

– Publishers:

<datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"> <subfield code="a">The amoebae living in man;</subfield> <subfield code="b">a zoological monograph,</subfield> <subfield code="c">by Clifford Dobell.</subfield>

</datafield>

<)tle>The amoebae living in man; a zoological monograph</)tle>


Challenge: Monographs/Series/Monographic Series •  “Report on the Rhynchota collected by the Wollaston Expedi)on in Dutch New Guinea” –  Published in 1914 –  Bound & catalogued as a monograph –  Scanned as a monograph –  Assigned a DOI as a monograph in BHL:hqp://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.)tle.13791

•  Transac)ons of the Zoological Society of London, vol. 20, pt. 11. –  Presented by current publisher of that )tle as an ar)cle –  Assigned a DOI as a journal ar)cle: hqp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-‐7998.1912.tb07839x

Guess who provides free access?


Challenge: Ownership of Backfiles

•  Who owns public domain works? – Some publishers consider they have ownership of backfiles for journals they currently publish •  Long running series in natural history •  Cur$s’s Botanical Magazine, since 1787

•  Those publishers assign DOIs to their current volumes

•  BHL assigns DOIs to the public domain works we’ve digi)zed Guess who is upset?

BHL DOIs in Use


Linked Data

•  CrossRef DOIs are available as Linked Data, announced April 2011: – hqp://www.crossref.org/CrossTech/2011/04/content_nego)a)on_for_crossr.html

•  Awesome! :)

•  But I couldn’t get it to work :(


So I asked Twiqer for help…

•  Any #lodlam #LOD ppl interested in taking a look at open #bhlib data? hqp://t.co/is1a2dUl


…and Twiqer responded

•  @chrisfreeland Got this ht.ly/8zTuk using morph.talis.com awer conver)ng BibTEX to RDF using ht.ly/8zTxq

@asaletourneau:

•  @chrisfreeland I poked at making this work, but my results were not encouraging. See the comment on your blog post for details.

@cajunjoel


I also asked CrossRef support

•  Turns out it’s a bug! •  CrossRef DOI API wasn’t returning results for ISBN-‐less books – And remember, we don’t have those because of the ugly problems

•  We iden)fied & resolved a problem via Twiqer! –  Crowdsourcing #FTW! –  Talk about #lod bringing people together!

•  And all because of this panel

@cajunjoel

@asaletourneau


And then a dash of reality

•  “…why bother with linked data? Obviously I know the stock answer, but the reality is that most "linked data" isn't linked.…CrossRef RDF for an ar)cle the only external link (eventually) is to hqp://periodicals.dataincubator.org/ via the ISSN. Author names have arbitrary, non-‐resolvable URIs. So effec)vely the data is a silo. Linked data, yes, RDF, yes, but s)ll a silo.”

@rdmpage


Takeaway •  Assigning modern iden)fiers to legacy content is challenging –  “We know we need a policy on that…” –  Benefits are there, but may be slow to realize

•  Working with an agency like CrossRef has its advantages –  Support –  Tech advances: they flip a switch, instaLOD – Disadvantages: Co$t, may s)ll need custom solu)ons for emerging technologies

•  Linked Data is conceptually promising, but fraught with uncertainty in produc)on systems

10.5962/bhl.)tle.24947 10.5962/bhl.)tle.55495 10.5962/bhl.)tle.35182 10.5962/bhl .)t le .16580THANK/bhl .)t le .20698 10.5962/bhl.)tle.33773 10.5962/bhl.)tle.34905 10.5962/YOU.)tle.17497 10.5962/bhl.)tle.3818210.5962/bhl.)tle.37058 10.5962/bhl.)tle.29660 10.5962/bhl.)tle.4 2 4 5 8 1 0 . 5 9 6 2 / b h l . ) t l e . 3 3 2 6 1

Chris Freeland Technical Director, Biodiversity Heritage Library

Director, Center for Biodiversity Informa)cs, Missouri Botanical Garden

@chrisfreeland

Technology

BHL: Assigning DOIs & Other Identifiers to Legacy Literature