Bibliographic Services Task Force (Inactive) (BSTF)
April 19, 2005
To: John Riemer, (Chair, UCLA), Luc Declerck (UCSD), Amy Kautzman (UCB), Patti Martin (CDL), Terry Ryan (UCLA)
From: Bernie Hurley, SOPAG Chair
Bibliographic information provides the foundation for all library services provided by the CDL and campus libraries. Over time, a multitude of software applications have evolved to handle the different library services. Because these software applications have been developed to address specific needs, they serve their original purposes well, but do not interoperate as needed in the new shared digital library environment in which we now find ourselves. Various groups have identified problem areas for existing services such as:
- Melvyl and local catalogs: rather than campuses cataloging locally and sending records to be merged in a union catalog, would there be efficiencies and better service to users by using Melvyl as a cataloging utility?
- ERMS: how and for what purpose does the information propagate to other systems such as SFX, including A-Z lists, local catalogs and finding lists? Are there opportunities for efficiency and elimination of duplicate efforts? Would improved discovery services obviate the need for A-Z lists and finding lists?
- Enriched catalog: can the bibliographic data that is in our MARC records be enriched with other data (e.g. ONIX, tables of contents, cover art, etc.) to provide a better user experience? Both Amazon and Google are rich sources of ideas for providing compelling end-user experiences.
- Enhanced resource discovery: what would it take for the discovery tools that rely on UC bibliographic data to have functionality that is common in Amazon.com and Google, such as spell-checking of search terms, and ranking by popularity of the items?
- Design of future systems: how can we build a system that manages the processing of shared print items that complements existing data and systems rather than duplicates it in yet another silo? How can we do the same for a system that manages the digital preservation of UC journals?
- How can we move beyond the limitations of MARC in managing the lifecycle of digital resources (e.g., record information such as book reviews from publishers or notes like "ToC not scanned; irreparably damaged.")
- A single catalog: What would it take for campus libraries to use the union catalog for public access instead of their local catalog?
The University Librarians have directed SOPAG to form a Task Force to rethink how we provide bibliographic services. Therefore, this Bibliographic Services Task Force is being charged to:
- Inventory the end-user services supported by our bibliographic processing data (e.g., aggregation, discovery, delivery, local and collaborative collection development, collection management, etc.). Identify the middleware, workflow and processes involved in exchanging data between silos of bibliographic information supporting these services. Once the inventory of services and processes is complete, clearly articulate the problem(s) that need to be solved.
- Develop a vision and design principles for a new bibliographic service environment that states how the underlying bibliographic practices, workflows and technologies can work together more efficiently and flexibly to provide better services to end-users and library staff in a collaborative and shared collections environment (both electronic and print). The vision should provide a compelling story for motivating library staff to do things differently in order to improve user satisfaction. The design principles should address the user experience as well as identify potential architectural models.
- For services identified in (1), analyze the opportunities to pursue solutions in line with the vision and design principles in (2) and the costs and benefits associated with them.
- Deliver a report for SOPAG that summarizes your findings in (3) with recommendation on which opportunities should be pursued as high priorities.
- Develop an implementation road map for those services that SOPAG identifies as offering the most promise to fit the ideals in (2).
The Task Force should send the report identified in (4) to SOPAG by October 3, 2005. Your report will be sent to the ULs, the ULs advisory structure, the CDL and campus libraries for comment. After the comments are collected and reviewed by SOPAG, your Task Force will meet again to develop the implementation roadmaps identified by SOPAG as priorities.
SOPAG thanks you for agreeing to serve on this important task force.
Reports to SOPAG
Convener / Chair
John Riemer (UCLA)