Posted on August 26th, 2014 No comments
On August 14 the IFLA 2014 Satellite Meeting ‘Linked Data in Libraries: Let’s make it happen!’ took place at the National Library of France in Paris. Rurik Greenall (who also wrote a very readable conference report) and I had the opportunity to present our paper ‘An unbroken chain: approaches to implementing Linked Open Data in libraries; comparing local, open-source, collaborative and commercial systems’. In this paper we do not go into reasons for libraries to implement linked open data, nor into detailed technical implementation options. Instead we focus on the strategies that libraries can adopt for the three objectives of linked open data, original cataloguing/creating of linked data, exposing legacy data as linked open data and consuming external linked open data. Possible approaches are: local development, using Free and open Source Software, participating in consortia or service centres, and relying on commercial vendors, or any combination of these. Our main conclusions and recommendations are: identify your business case, if you’re not big enough be part of some community, and take lifecycle planning seriously.
The other morning presentations provided some interesting examples of a number of approaches we described in our talk. Valentine Charles presented the work in the area of aggregating library and heritage data from a large number of heterogeneous sources in different languages by two European institutions that de facto function as large consortia or service centres for exposing and enriching data, Europeana and The European Library. Both platforms not only expose their aggregated content in web pages for human consumption but also as linked open data, besides other so called machine readable formats. Moreover they enrich their aggregated content by consuming data from their own network of providers and from external sources, for instance multilingual “value vocabularies” like thesauri, authority lists, classifications. The ideas is to use concepts/URIs together with display labels in multiple languages. For Europeana these sources currently are GeoNames, DBPedia and GEMET. Work is being done on including the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) which was recently published as Linked Open Data. Besides using VIAF for person authorities, The European Library has started adding multilingual subject headings by integrating the Common European Research Classification Scheme, part of the CERIF format. The use of MACS (Multilingual Access to Subjects) as Linked Open Data is being investigated. This topic was also discussed during the informal networking breaks. Questions that were asked: is MACS valuable for libraries, who should be responsible for MACS and how can administering MACS in a Linked Open Data environment best be organized? Personally I believe that a multilingual concept based subject authority file for libraries, archives, museums and related institutions is long overdue and will be extremely valuable, not only in Linked Open Data environments.
The importance of multilingual issues and the advantages that Linked Open Data can offer in this area were also demonstrated in the presentation about the Linked Open Authority Data project at the National Diet Library of Japan. The Web NDL Authorities are strongly connected to VIAF and LCSH among others.
The presentation of the Linked Open Data environment of the National Library of France BnF (http://data.bnf.fr) highlighted a very interesting collaboration between a large library with considerable resources in expertise, people and funding on the one hand, and the non-library commercial IT company Logilab. The result of this project is a very sophisticated local environment consisting of the aggregated data sources of the National Library and a dedicated application based on the free software tool Cubicweb. An interesting situation arose when the company Logilab itself asked if the developed applications could be released as Open Source by the National Library. The BnF representative Gildas Illien (also one of the organizers of the meeting together with Emmanuelle Bermes) replied with considerations about planning, support and scalability, which is completely understandable from the perspective of lifecycle planning.
With all these success stories about exposing and publishing Linked Open Data, the question always remains if the data is actually used by others. It is impossible to incorporate this in project planning and results evaluation. Regarding the BnF data this question was answered in the presentation about Linked Open Data in the book industry. The Electre and Antidot project uses linked open data form among others data.bnf.fr.
The afternoon presentations were focused on creating, maintaining and using various data models, controlled vocabularies and knowledge organisation sysems (KOS) as Linked Open Data: The EDM Europeana data Model, UNIMARC, MODS. An interesting perspective was presented by Gordon Dunsire on versioning vocabularies in a linked data world. Vocabularies change over time, so an assignment of a URI of a certain vocabulary concept should always contain version information (like timestamps and/or version numbers) in order to be able to identify the intended meaning at the time of assigning.
The meeting was concluded with a panel with representatives of three commercial companies involved in library systems and Linked Open Data developments: Ex Libris, OCLC and the afore-mentioned Logilab. The fact that this panel with commercial companies on library linked data took place was significant and important in itself, regardless of the statements that were made about the value and importance of Linked Open Data in library systems. After years of dedicated temporarily funded proof of concept projects this may be an indication that Linked Open Data in libraries is slowly becoming mainstream.
Posted on June 19th, 2014 1 comment
Lingering gold at ELAG 2014
Libraries tend to see themselves as intermediaries between information and the public, between creators and consumers of information. Looking back at the ELAG 2014 conference at the University of Bath however, I can’t get the image out of my head of libraries standing in the way between information and consumers. We’ve been talking about “inside out libraries”, “libraries everywhere”, “rethinking the library” and similar soundbites for some years now, but it looks like it’s been only talk and nothing more. A number of speakers at ELAG 2014 reported that researchers, students and other potential library visitors wanted the library to get out of their way and give them direct access to all data, files and objects. A couple of quotes:
- “We hide great objects behind search forms” (Peter Mayr, “EuropeanaBot”)
- “Give us everything” (Ben O’Steen, “The Mechanical Curator”).
[Lingering gold: data, objects]
In a cynical way this observation tightly fits this year’s conference theme “Lingering Gold”, which refers to the valuable information and objects hidden and locked away somewhere in physical and virtual local stores, waiting to be dug up and put to use. In her keynote talk, Stella Wisdom, digital curator at the British Library, gave an extensive overview of the digital content available there, and the tools and services employed to present it to the public. However, besides options for success, there are all kinds of pitfalls in attempting to bring local content to the world. In our performance “The Lord of the Strings”, Karen Coyle, Rurik Greenall, Martin Malmsten, Anders Söderbäck and myself tried to illustrate that in an allegorical way, resulting in a ROADMAP containing guidelines for bringing local gold to the world.
In recent years it has become quite clear that data, dispersed and locked away in countless systems and silos, once liberated and connected can be a very valuable source of new information. This was very pertinently demonstrated by Stina Johansson in her presentation of visualization of research and related networks at Chalmers University using available data from a number of their information systems. Similar network visualizations are available in the VIVO open source linked data based research information tool, which was the topic of a preconference bootcamp which I helped organize (many thanks especially to Violeta Ilik, Gabriel Birke and Ted Lawless who did most of the work).
[Systems, apis, technology trap]
The point made here also implies that information systems actually function as roadblocks to full data access instead of as finding aids. I have come to realize this some time ago, and my perception was definitely confirmed during ELAG 2014. In his lightning talk Rurik Greenall emphasized the fact that what we do in libraries and other institutions is actually technology driven. Systems define the way we work and what we publish. This should be the other way around. Even APIs, intended for access to data in systems without having to use end user system functions, are actually sub-systems, giving non transparent views on the data. When Steve Meyer in his talk “Building useful and usable web services” said “data is the API” he was right in theory, yet in practice the reverse is not necessarily true. Also, APIs are meant to be used by developers in new systems. Non-tech end users have no use for it, as is illustrated by one of the main general reactions from researchers to the British Library Labs surveys, as reported by Ben O’Steen: “API? What’s that? I don’t care. Just give me the files.”.
[Commercial vs open source]
This technology critique essentially applies to both commercial/proprietary and open source systems alike. However, it could be that open source environments are more favorable to open and findable data than proprietary ones. Felix Ostrowski talked about the reasons for and outcomes of the Regal project, moving the electronic objects repository of the State Library of Rheinland-Pfalz from an environment based on commercial software to one based on open source tools and linked data concepts. One of the side effects of this move was that complaints were received from researchers about their output being publicly available on the web. This shows that the new approach worked, that the old approach was effectively hiding information and that certain stakeholders are completely satisfied with that.
On the side: one of the open source components of the new Regal environment is Fedora , only used for digital objects, not any metadata, which is exactly what is currently happening in the new repository project at the Library of the University of Amsterdam. A legitimate question asked by Felix: why use Fedora and not just the file system in this case?
All these observations also imply that, if libraries really want to disseminate and share their lingering gold with the world, alternative ways of exposing content are needed, instead of or besides the existing ones. Fortunately some libraries and individuals have been working on providing better direct access and even unguided and unsolicited publication of data and objects that might be available but not really findable with traditional library search tools. The above mentioned EuropeanaBot (and other twitter bots) and the British Library Labs’ Mechanical Curator are a case in point. Every hour EuropeanaBot sends a tweet about a random digital object, enriching it with extra information from Wikipedia and other sources.
In the case of the British Library Labs Ben O’Steen described an experiment with free access to large amounts of data that by chance led to the observation that randomly excavated images from that vast amount of content drew people’s attention. As all content was in the public domain anyway, they asked themselves “what’s the harm in making it a bit more acessible?”. So the Mechanical Curator was born, with channels on tumblr, twitter and flickr.
Another alternative way to expose and share library content, a game, was presented by Ciaran Talbot and Kay Munro: LibraryGame. In brief, students are encouraged to use and visit the library and share library content with others by awarding them points and badges as members of an online community. The only two things students didn’t like about the name LibraryGame were “library” and “game”, so the name was changed to “BookedIn”.
No matter if you like bots and games or not, the important message here is that it is worthwhile exploring alternative ways by which people can find the content that libraries consider so valuable.
In the end, it’s people that libraries work for. At Utrecht University Library they realised that they needed simpler ways to make it possible for people to use their content, not only APIs. Marina Muilwijk described how they are experimenting with the Lean Startup method. In a continuous cycle of building, measuring and learning, simple applications are released to end users in order to test if they use them and how they react to them.
“Focus on the user” was also the theme of the workshop given by Ken Chad around the Jobs-to-be-done methodology.
Interestingly, “How people find” instead of: “How people search” was one of the perspectives of the Jisc “Spotlight on the Digital” project, presented by Owen Stephens in his lightning talk.
[Collections and findability]
Another perspective of that Jisc project was how to make collections discoverable. It turns out that collections as such are represented on the web quite well, whereas items in these collection aren’t.
Valentine Charles of The European Library demonstrated the benefits of collection level metadata for the discoverability of hidden content, using the CENDARI project as example.
What’s a library technology conference without linked data? Implicitly and explicitly the instrument of connecting data from different sources relates quite well to most of the topics presented around the theme of lingering gold, with or without the application of the official linked data rules. I have already mentioned most cases, I will only go into a couple of specific sessions here.
Niklas Lindström and Lina Westerling presented the developments with the new linked data based cataloguing system for the Swedish LIBRIS union catalogue. This approach is not simply a matter of exposing and consuming linked data, but in essence the reconstruction of existing workflows using a completely new architecture.
The data management and integration platform d:swarm, a joint open source project of SLUB State and University Library Dresden and the commercial company AvantgardeLabs was presented in a lightning talk by Jan Polowinski. This tool aims at harvesting and normalising data from various existing systems and datastores into an intermediate platform that in turn can be used for all kinds of existing and new front end systems and services. The concept looks very useful for library environments with a multitude of legacy systems. Some time ago I visited the d:swarm team in Dresden together with a group of developers from the KOBV library consortium in Berlin, two of whom (Julia Goltz and Viktoria Schubert) presented their own new K2 portal solution for the data integration challenge in a lightning talk.
Linked data is all about unique identifiers on the web. The recent popular global identifier for researchers ORCiD, at last year’s ELAG topic of one of the workshops, was explained by Tom Demeranville. As it happened, right after the conference it became clear that ORCiD implemented the Turtle linked data format.
The problem of matching string based personal names from various data sources without matching identifiers was tackled in the workshop “Linking Data with sameAs” which I attended. Jane and Adrian Stevenson of the ArchivesHub UK showed us hands-on how to use tools like LOD-Refine and Silk for reconciling string value data fields and producing “sameAs” relationships/triples to be used in your local triple store. They have had substantial experience with this challenge in their Linking Lives project. I found the workshop very useful. One of the take-aways was that matching string data is hard work.
Hard work also goes on in the caves and basements of the library world, as was demonstrated by Toke Eskildsen in his war stories of the Danish State Library with scanning companies, and by Eva Dahlbäck and Theodor Tolstoy in their account of using smartphones and RFID technology in fetching books from the stacks.
Once again I have to say that a number of unofficial sessions, at breakfast, dinner, in pubs and hotel bars, were much more informative than the official presentations. These open discussions in small groups, fostering free exchange of ideas without fear of embarrassment, while being triggered by the talks in the official programme, can simply not take place within a tight conference schedule. Nevertheless, ELAG is a conference small and informal enough to attract people inclined to these extracurricular activities. I thank everybody who engaged in this. You know who you are. Or check Rurik Greenall’s conference report, which is a very structured yet personal account of the event.
Lots of thanks to the dedicated and very helpful local organisation team of the Library of the University of Bath, who have done a wonderful job doing something completely new to them: organising an international conference.
Posted on December 1st, 2013 1 comment
Struggling towards usable linked data services at SWIB13
Paraphrasing some of the challenges proposed by keynote speaker Dorothea Salo, the unofficial theme of the SWIB13 conference in Hamburg might be described as “No more ontologies, we want out of the box linked data tools!”. This sounds like we are dealing with some serious confrontations in the linked open data world. Judging by Martin Malmsten’s LIBRIS battle cry “Linked data or die!” you might even think there’s an actual war going on.
Looking at the whole range of this year’s SWIB pre-conference workshops, plenary presentations and lightning talks, you may conclude that “linked data is a technology that is maturing” as Rurik Greenall rightly states in his conference report. “But it has quite a way to go before we can say this stuff is ready to roll out in libraries” as he continues. I completely agree with this. Personally I got the impression that we are in a paradoxical situation where on the one hand people speak of “we” and “community”, and on the other hand they take fundamentalist positions, unconditionally defending their own beliefs and slandering and ridiculing other options. In my view there are multiple, sometimes overlapping, sometimes irreconcilable “we’s” and “communities”. Sticking to your own point of view without willingness to reason with the other party really does not bring “us” further.
This all sounds a bit grim, but I again agree with Rurik Greenall when he says that he “enjoyed this conference immensely because of the people involved”. And of course on the whole the individual workshops and presentations were of a high quality.
Before proceeding to the positive aspects of the conference, let me first elaborate a bit on the opposing positions I observed during the conference, which I think we should try to overcome.
Developers disagree on a multitude of issues:
Developers hate MARC. Everybody seems to hate RDF/XML, JSON-LD seems to be the thing for RDF, but some say only Turtle should be used, or just JSON.
Tools and languages
Perl users hate Java, Jave users hate PHP, there’s Python and Ruby bashing.
Create your own, reuse existing ones, yes or no upper ontologies, no ontologies but usable tools.
Windows/UNIX/Linux/Apple… it’s either/or.
Open source vs. commercial software
Need I say more?
Belgians hate German beer, or any foreign beer for that matter.
(Not to mention PDF).
OK, I hope I made myself clear. The point is that I have no problem at all with having diverse opinions, but I dislike it when people are convinced that their own opinion is the only right one and refuse to have a conversation with those who think otherwise, or even respect their choices in silence. The developer “community” definitely has quite a way to go.
Apart from these internal developer disagreements I noticed, there is the more fundamental gap between developers and users of linked open data. By “users” I do not mean “end users” in this case, but the intermediary deployers of systems. Let’s call them “libraries”.
Linked Data developers talk about tools and programming languages, metadata formats, open source, ontologies, technology stacks. Librarians want to offer useful services to their end users, right now. They may not always agree on what kind of services and what kind of end users, and they may have an opinion on metadata formats in systems, but their outlook is slightly different from the developers’ horizon. It’s all about expectations and expectation management. That is basically Dorothea Salo’s keynote’s point. Of course theoretical, scientific and technical papers and projects are needed to take linked data further, but libraries need linked data tools, focused on providing new services to their end users/customers in the world of the web, that can easily be implemented and maintained.
In this respect OCLC’s efforts to add linked data features to WorldCat is praiseworthy. OCLC’s Technology Evangelist Richard Wallis presented his view on the benefits of linked open data for libraries, using Google’s Knowledge Graph as an example. His talk was mainly focused at a librarian audience. At SWIB, where the majority of attendees are developers or technology staff, this seemed somewhat misplaced. By chance I had been present at Richard’s talk at the Dutch National Information Professional annual meeting two weeks earlier, where he delivered almost the same presentation for a large room full of librarians. There and then that was completely on target. For the SWIB audience this all may have been old news, except for the heads up about OCLC’s work on FRBR “Works” BIBFRAME type linked data which will result in published URIs for Works in WorldCat.
An important point here is that OCLC is a company with many library customers worldwide, so developments like this benefit all of these libraries. The same applies to customers of one of the other big library system vendors, Ex Libris. They have been working on developing linked data features for their so called “next generation” tools since some time now, in close cooperation with the international user groups’ Linked Open Data Special Interest Working Group, as I explained in the lightning talk I gave. Also open source library systems like Koha are working on adding linked open data features to their tools. It’s with tools like these, that reach a large number of libraries, that linked open data for libraries can spread relatively quickly.
In contrast to this linked data broadcasting, the majority of the SWIB presentations showed local proprietary development or research projects, mostly of high quality notwithstanding. In the case of systems or tools that were built all the code and ontologies are available on GitHub, making them open source. However, while it is commendable, open source on GitHub doesn’t mean that these potentially ground breaking systems and ontologies can and will be adopted as de facto standards in the wider library community. Most libraries, both public and academic, are dependent on commercial system and content providers and can’t afford large scale local system development. This also applies up to a point to libraries that deploy large open source tools like Koha, I presume.
It would be great if some of these many great open source projects could evolve into commonly used standard tools, like Koha, Fedora and Drupal, just to name a few. Vivo is another example of an open source project rapidly moving towards an accepted standard. It is a framework for connecting and publishing research information of different nature and origin, based on linked data concepts. At SWIB there was a pre-conference “VivoCamp”, organised by Lambert Heller, Valeria Pesce and myself. Research information is an area rapidly gaining importance in the academic world. The Library of the University of Amsterdam, where I work, is in the process of starting a Vivo pilot, in which I am involved. (Yes, the Library of the University of Amsterdam uses both commercial providers like OCLC and Ex Libris, and many open source tools). The VivoCamp was a good opportunity to have a practical introduction in and discussion about the framework, not in the least by the presence of John Fereira of Cornell University, one of the driving forces behind Vivo. All attendees (26) expressed their interest in a follow-up.
Vivo, although it may be imperfect, represents the type of infrastructure that may be needed for large scale adoption of linked open data in libraries. PUB, the repository based linked data research information project at Bielefeld University presented by Vitali Peil, is aimed at exactly the same domain as Vivo, but it again is a locally developed system, using another smaller scale open source framework (LibreCat/Catmandu of Bielefeld, Ghent and Lund universities) and a number of different ontologies, of which Vivo is just one. My guess is that, although PUB/LibreCat might be superior, Vivo will become the de facto standard in linked data based research information systems.
Instead of focusing on systems, maybe the library linked data world would be better served by a common user-friendly metadata+services infrastructure. Of course, the web and the semantic web are supposed to be that infrastructure, but in reality we all move around and process metadata all the time, from one system and database to another, in order to be able to offer new legacy and linked data services. At SWIB there was mention of a number of tools for ETL, which is developer jargon for Extract, Transform, Load. By the way, jargon is a very good way to widen the gap between developers and libraries.
There were pre-conference workshop for the ETL tools Catmandu and Metafacture, and in a lightning talk SLUB Dresden, in collaboration with Avantgarde Labs, presented a new project focused on using ETL for a separate multi-purpose data management platform, serving as a unified layer between external data sources and services. This looks like a very interesting concept, similar to the ideas of a data services hub I described in an earlier post “(Discover AND deliver) OR else”. The ResourceSync project, presented by Simeon Warner, is trying to address the same issue by a different method, distributed synchronisation of web resources.
One can say that the BIBFRAME project is also focused on data infrastructure, albeit at the moment limited to the internal library cataloguing workflow, aimed at replacing MARC. An overview of the current state of the project was presented by Lars Svensson of the German National Library.
The same can be said for the National Library of Sweden’s new LIBRIS linked data based cataloguing system, presented by Martin Malmsten (Decentralisation, Distribution, Disintegration – towards Linked Data as a First Class Citizen in Libraryland). The big difference is that they’re actually doing what BIBFRAME is trying to plan. The war cry “Linked data or die!” refers to the fact that it is better to start from scratch with a domain and format independent data infrastructure, like linked data, than to try and build linking around existing rigid formats like MARC. Martin Malmsten rightly stated that we should keep formats outside our systems, as is also the core statement of the MARC-MUST-DIE movement. Proprietary formats can be dynamically imported and exported at will, as was demonstrated by the “MARC” button in the LIBRIS user interface. New library linked data developments will have to coexist with the existing wider library metadata and systems environment for some time.
Like all other local projects, the LIBRIS source code and ontology descriptions are available on GitHub. In this case the mere scope of the National Library of Sweden and of the project makes it a bit more plausible that this may actually be reused on a larger scale. At least the library cataloguing ontology in JSON-LD there is worth having a look at.
To return to our starting point, the LIBRIS project acknowledges the fact that we need actual tools besides the ontologies. As Martin Malmsten quoted: “Trying to sell the idea of linked data without interfaces is like trying to sell a fax without the invention of paper”.
The central question in all this: what is the role of libraries in linked data? Developers or implementers, individually or in a community? There is obviously not one answer. Maybe we will know more at SWIB14. Paraphrasing Fabian Steeg and Pascal Christoph of hbz and Dorothea Salo, next years theme might be “Out of the box data knitting for great justice”.
Posted on November 11th, 2013 4 comments
Using discovery tools for presenting integrated information
There has been a lot of discussion in recent years about library discovery tools. Basically, a library discovery tool provides a centrally maintained shared scholarly material metadata index, a system for searching and an option for adding a local metadata index. Academic libraries use it for providing a unified access platform to subscribed and open access databases and ejournals as well as their own local print and digital holdings.
I would like to put forward that, despite their shortcomings, library discovery tools can also be used for finding and presenting other scholarly information in the broadest sense. Libraries should look beyond the narrow focus on limitations and turn imperfection into benefits.
The two main points of discussion regarding discovery tools are the coverage of the central shared index and relevance ranking. For a number of reasons of a practical, technical and competitive nature, none of the commercial central indexes cover all the content that academic libraries may subscribe to. Relevance ranking of search results depends on so many factors that it is a science in itself to satisfy each and every end user with their own specific background and context. Discovery tool vendors spend a lot of energy in improving coverage and relevance ranking.
These two problems are the reason that not many academic libraries have been able to achieve the one-stop unified scholarly information portals for their staff and students that discovery tool providers promised them. In most cases the institutional discovery portal is just one of the solutions for finding scholarly publications that are offered by the library. A number of libraries are reconsidering their attitude towards discovery tools, or have even decided to renounce these tools altogether and focus on delivery instead, leaving discovery to external parties like Google Scholar.
I fully support the idea that libraries should reconsider their attitude towards discovery tools, but I would like to stress that they should do so with a much broader perspective than just the traditional library responsibility of providing access to scholarly publications. Libraries must not throw away the baby with the bathwater. They should realise that a discovery tool can be used as a platform for presenting connected scholarly information, for instance publications with related research project information and research datasets, based on linked open data principles. You could call this the “poor person’s linked open data platform”, because the library has already paid the license fee for the discovery platform, and it does not have to spend a lot of extra money on additional linked open data tools and facilities.
Of course this presupposes a number of things: the content to be connected should have identifiers, preferably in the form of URIs, and should be openly available for reuse, preferably via RDF. The discovery tools should be able to process URIs and RDF and present the resolved content in their user interfaces. We all know that this is not the case yet. Long term strategies are needed.
Content providers must be convinced of the added value of adding identifiers and URIs to their metadata and providing RDF entry points. In the case of publishers of scholarly publications this means identifiers/URIs for the publications themselves, but also for authors, contributors, organisations, related research projects and datasets. A number of international associations and initiatives are already active in lobbying for these developments: OpenAIRE, Research Data Alliance, DataCite, the W3C Research Object for Scholarly Communication Community Group, etc. Universities themselves can contribute by adding URIs and RDF to their own institutional repositories and research information systems. Some universities are implementing special tools for providing integrated views on research information based on linked data, such as VIVO.
There are also many other interesting data sources that can be used to integrate information in discovery tools, for instance in the government and cultural heritage domain. Many institutions in these areas already provide linked open data entry points. And then there is WikiPedia with its linked open data interface DBpedia.
On the other side of the scale discovery tool providers must be convinced of the added value of providing procedures for resolving URIs and processing RDF in order to integrate information from internal and external data sources into new knowledge. I don’t know of any plans for implementing linked open data features in any of the main commercial or open source discovery tools, except for Ex Libris’ Primo. OCLC provides a linked data section for each WorldCat search result, but that is mainly focused on publishing their own bibliographic metadata in linked data format, using links to external subject and author authority files. This is a positive development, but it’s not consumption and reuse of external information in order to create new integrated knowledge beyond the bibliographic domain.
With the joint IGeLU/ELUNA Linked Open Data Special Interest Working Group the independent Ex Libris user groups have been communicating with Ex Libris strategy and technology management on the best ways to implement much needed linked open data features in their products. The Primo discovery tool (with the Primo Central shared metadata index) is one of the main platforms in focus. Ex Libris is very keen on getting actual use cases and scenarios in order to identify priorities in going forward. We have been providing these for some time now through publications, presentations at user group conferences, monthly calls and face to face meetings. Ex Libris is also exploring best practices for the technical infrastructure to be used and is planning pilots with selected customers.
The Austrian national library service OBVSG for instance has integrated WikiPedia/DBpedia information about authors in their Primo results.
The Saxon State and University Library Dresden (SLUB) has implemented a multilingual semantic search tool for subjects based on DBpedia in their Primo installation.
At the University of Amsterdam I have been experimenting myself with linking publications from our Institutional Repository (UvA DARE) in Primo with related research project information. This has for now resulted in adding extra external links to that information in the Dutch National Research portal NARCIS, because NARCIS doesn’t provide RDF yet. We are communicating with DANS, the NARCIS provider, about extending their linked open data features for this purpose.
Of course all these local implementations can serve as use cases for discovery tool providers.
I have only talked about the options of using discovery tools as a platform for consuming, reusing and presenting external linked open data, but I can imagine that a discovery tool can also be used as a platform for publishing linked open data. It shouldn’t be too hard to add extra RDF options besides the existing HTML and internal record format output formats. That way libraries could have a full linked open data consumption and publishing workbench at their disposal at minimal cost. Library discovery tools would from then on be known as information discovery tools.
Posted on January 7th, 2013 98 comments
The future of the academic library as a data services hub
Is there a future for libraries, or more specifically: is there a future for academic libraries? This has been the topic of lots of articles, blog posts, books and conferences. See for instance Aaron Tay’s recent post about his favourite “future of libraries” articles. But the question needs to be addressed over and over again, because libraries, and particularly academic libraries, continue to persevere in their belief that they will stay relevant in the future. I’m not so sure.
I will focus here on academic libraries. I work for one, the Library of the University of Amsterdam. Academic libraries in my view are completely different from public libraries in audience, content, funding and mission. As far as I’m concerned, they only have the name in common. For a vision on the future of public libraries, see Ed Summer’s excellent post “The inside out library”. As for research and special libraries, some of what I am about to say will apply to these libraries as well.
So, is there a future for academic libraries? Personally I think in the near future we will see the end of the academic library as we know it. Let’s start with looking at what are perceived to be the core functions of libraries: discovery and delivery, of books and articles.
For a complete overview of the current library ecosystem you should read Lorcan Dempsey’s excellent article “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Libraries, Discovery, and the Catalog: Scale, Workflow, Attention”.
“Discovery happens elsewhere”. Lorcan Dempsey said this already in 2007 . What this means is that the audience the library aims at, primarily searches for and finds information via other platforms than the library’s website and search interfaces. Several studies (for instance OCLC’s “Perceptions of libraries, 2010“) show that the most popular platforms are general search engines like Google and Wikipedia but also specific databases. And of course, if you’re looking for instant information, you don’t go to the library catalogue, because it only points you to items that you have to read in order to ascertain that they may or may not contain the information you need.
And if you are indeed looking for publications (books, articles, etc.) you could of course search your library’s catalogue and discovery interface. But you can find exactly the same and probably even more results elsewhere: in other libraries’ search interfaces, or aggregators that collect bibliographic metadata from all over the world. Moreover, academic libraries are doing their best to get their local holdings metadata in WorldCat and their journal holdings in Google Scholar. As I said in my EMTACL12 talk: you can’t find all you need with one local discovery tool.
Also, the traditional way of discovery through browsing the shelves is disappearing rapidly. The physical copies at the University of Amsterdam Library for instance are all stored in a storage facility in a suburb. Apart from some reference works and latest journal issues there is nothing to find in the library buildings. There is no need for a university library building for discovery purposes anymore.
Utrecht University Library has taken the logical next step: they decided not to acquire a new discovery tool, discontinue their local homegrown article search index and focus on delivery. See the article “Thinking the unthinkable: a library without a catalogue” .
So, if discovery is something that academic libraries should not invest in anymore, is delivery really the only core responsibility left? Let’s have a closer look.
Delivery in the traditional academic library sense means: giving the customer access to the publications he or she selected, both in print and digital form. In the case of subscription based e-journal articles, delivery consists of taking a subscription and leading the customer to the appropriate provider website to obtain the online article. Taking subscriptions is an administrative and financial activity. For historical reasons the university library has been taking care of this task. Because they handled the print subscriptions, they also started taking care of the digital versions. But actually it’s not the library that holds the subscription, it’s the university. And it really does not require librarian skills to handle subscriptions. This could very well be taken care of by the central university administration. For free and open access journals you don’t even need that.
The selection and procurement of journal packages from a large number of publishers and content providers is a different issue. Specific expertise is required for this. I will come to that later.
The task of leading the customer to the appropriate online copy is only a technical procedure, involving setting up link resolvers. Again, no librarian skills needed. This task could be done by some central university agency, maybe even using an external global linking registry.
As for the delivery of physical print copies, this is obviously nothing more than a logistics workflow, no different from delivery of furniture, tools, food, or any other physical business. The item is ordered, it is fetched from the shelf, sometimes by huge industrial robot installations, put in a van or cart, transported to the desired location and put in the customer’s locker or something similar. Again: no librarian skills whatsoever. Physical delivery only needs a separate internal or external logistics unit.
So, if discovery and delivery will cease to be core activities of the central university library organisation, what else is there?
Selection of print and digital material was already mentioned. It is evident that the selection of printed and digital books and journal subscriptions needs to be governed by expert knowledge and decisions in order to provide staff and students with the best possible material, because there is a lot of money involved. Typically this task is carried out by subject specialists (also called subject librarians), not by generalists. These ‘faculty liaisons’ usually have had an education in the disciplines they are responsible for, and they work closely together with their customers (academic staff and students). Many universities have semiautonomous discipline oriented sublibraries. The recent development of Patron Driven Acquisition (PDA) also fits into this construction.
The actual comparison, selection and procurement of journal packages from a large number of publishers and content providers requires a certain generic specific expertise which is not discipline dependent. This is a task that could well continue to be the responsibility of some central organisational unit, which may or may not be called the university library.
And what about cataloguing, a definite librarian skill? If discovery happens elsewhere, and libraries don’t need to maintain their own local catalogues, then it seems obvious that libraries don’t need to catalogue anything anymore. In fact, in the current situation most libraries don’t catalogue that much already. All the main bibliographical metadata for books (title, author, date, etc.) are already provided by publishers, by external central library service centres, or by other libraries in a shared cataloguing environment. And libraries have never catalogued journal articles anyway, only journals and issues. Article metadata are provided by the publishers or aggregators. Libraries pay for these services.
It is usual for libraries to add their own subject headings and classification terms to the already existing ones. But as Karen Coyle said at EMTACL12: “Library classification is a knowledge prevention system“, because it offers only one specific object oriented view on the information world. So maybe libraries should stop doing this, which would be in line with the “discovery happens elsewhere” argument anyway.
What remains of cataloguing is adding local holdings, items and subscription information. This is very useful information for library customers, but again this doesn’t seem to require very detailed librarian skills. As a matter of fact most of these metadata are already provided in the selection and acquisition process by acquisition staff and vendors.
The recent Library of Congress BIBFRAME initiative developments in theory make it possible to replace all local cataloguing efforts by linking local holdings information to global metadata.
There is still one area that may require the full local cataloguing range: the university’s own scientific output, as long as it is not published in journals or as books. The fulltext material is made available through institutional repositories, which obviously requires metadata to make the publications findable. However, the majority of the institutional publications are made available through other channels as well, as mentioned, so the need for local cataloguing in these cases is absent.
More and more students are coming to the library buildings every day, that’s what you hear all the time. Large amounts of money are spent on creating new study centres and meeting places in existing library buildings, even on new buildings. But that’s exactly the point: students don’t come to the library for discovery anymore, because the building no longer provides that. They come for places to study, use network pc’s or the university wifi, meet with fellow students, pick up their print items on loan, or view not-for-loan material. The physical locations are nothing more or less than study centres. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, they are very important, but they do not have to be associated with the university library, but can be provided by the university, on any location.
The reference desk, or its online counterpart, is a weird phenomenon. It seems to emphasise the fact that if you want instant information, books are of no use. On the other hand, it suggests that you should come to the library if you need specific information right now. In my view, although the reference desk partly embodies the actual original objective of a library, namely giving access to information, this could function very well outside the library context.
The reference desk service is also somewhat ambiguous. In some cases subject specialist expertise is needed, other cases require a more general knowledge of how to search and find information.
Statistics of the use of library holdings, both print and electronic, are an important source of information for making decisions on acquisitions and subscriptions. These statistics are provided by local and remote delivery systems and vendors. Usage statistics can also be used for other purposes, like identifying certain trends in scholarly processes, mapping of information sources to specific user groups, etc. Administering and providing statistics once again is not a librarian task, but can be done by internal or external service providers.
Special Collections are a Special Case. Most university libraries have a Special Collections division, for historical reasons. But of course Special Collections divisions are nothing less than a Museum and Archive division with specific skills, expertise and procedures. Most of the time they are autonomous units within the university anyway.
Now, if the traditional library tasks of selection, cataloguing, discovery and delivery will increasingly be carried out by non-librarian staff and units inside and outside the university, is there still a valid reason for maintaining an autonomous central university library organisation? Should academic libraries shift focus? There are a number of possible new services and responsibilities for the library that are being discussed or already being implemented.
Content curation can be seen as the task of bringing together information on a specific subject, of all kinds, from different sources on the web to be consumed by people in an easy way. This is something that can be done and is already done by all kinds of organisations and people. Libraries, academic, public and other types, can and should play a bigger role in this area. This involves looking at other units and sources of information than just the traditional library ones: books and journals. This new service type evidently is closely related to the traditional reference desk service.
Obviously this can best be taken care of by subject specialists. To do this, they need tools and infrastructure. These tools and infrastructure are of a generic nature and can be provided by technical specialists inside or outside the libraries or universities.
Techniques are often referred to as “mashups” or “linked data”, depending on the background of the people involved.
Linked data deserves its own section here, because it has been an ever widening movement since a number of years. It finally reached the library world the last couple of years with developments like the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, the Library of Congress BIBFRAME initiative and the IFLA Semantic Web Special Interest Group. Linked data is a special type of data source mashup infrastructure. It requires the use of URIs for all separately usable data entities, and triples as the format for the actual linking (subject-predicate-object), mostly using the RDF structure.
There are two sides to linked data: the publishing of data in RDF and consequently the consumption of data elsewhere. A special case is the linked data based infrastructure, combining both publication and consumption in a specific way, as is the objective of the above mentioned BIBFRAME project.
Again, we need both subject specialists and generic technology experts to make this work in libraries, both academic and public ones.
University libraries are more and more expected to increase the level of support for researchers. It’s not only about providing access to scholarly publications anymore, but also about maintaining research information systems, virtual research environments, and long term preservation, availability and reusability of research data sets.
Again, here we see the need for discipline specific support because the needs of researchers for communication, collaboration and data varies greatly per discipline. And again, for the technical and organisational infrastructure we need internal or external generic technology experts and services. Apart from metadata expertise there are no traditional librarian skills required.
The Final Frontier: the library turning 180 degrees and switching from consumption to production of publications. According to some people university libraries are very suitable and qualified to become scholarly publishers (see for instance Björn Brembs‘ “Libraries Are Better Than Corporate Publishers Because…”). I am not sure that this is actually the case. Publishing as it currently exists requires a number of specific skills that have nothing to do with librarian expertise. A number of universities already have dedicated university press publishing agencies. But of course the publishing process can and probably will change. There is the open access movement, there is the rebellion against large scientific publishers, and last but not least, there is the slow rise of nanopublications, which could revolutionise the form that scholarly publishing will take. In the future publishing can originate at the source, making use of all kinds of new technologies of linking different types of data into new forms of non-static publications. Universities or university libraries could play a role here. Again we see here the need for both subject specialists and generic technology.
Special and general
So what is the overall picture? Of the current academic library tasks, only a few may still be around in the university in the future: selection, acquisition, cataloguing (if any), reference desk, usage statistics, and only a small part actually requires traditional librarian skills. Together with the new service areas of content curation, linked data, research support and publishing, this is rather an odd collection of very different fields of expertise. There does not seem to be a nice matching set of tasks for one central university division, let alone a library.
But what all these areas have in common is that they depend on linking and coordination of data from different sources.
And another interesting conclusion is that virtually all of these areas have two distinct components:
- Discipline or subject specific expertise
- Generic technical and organisational data infrastructure
I see a new duality in the realm of information management in universities. Selection, content curation, reference desk, linking data, cataloguing and research support will all be the domain of subject specialists directly connected to departments responsible for teaching and research in specific disciplines. These discipline related services will depend on generic technological and organisational infrastructures, available inside and outside the university, maintained by generic technical specialists.
These generic infrastructures could function completely separately, or they could somehow be interlinked and coordinated by some central university organisational unit. This would make sense, because there is a lot of overlap in information between these areas. Some kind of central data coordination unit would make it possible to provide a lot more useful data services than can be imagined now. Also, usage statistics, acquisition and the potential new publishing framework, yes even the special collections, could benefit from a central data services unit.
Such a unit would be different from the existing university ICT department. The latter mainly provides generic hardware, network, storage and security, and is focused on the internal infrastructure, trying to keep out as much external traffic as possible.
The new unit would be targeted at providing data services, possibly built on top of the internal technical infrastructure, but mainly using existing external ones. And it is obvious that there is added value in cooperation with similar bodies outside the university.
“Data services” then stands for providing storage, use, reuse, creation and linking of internal and external metadata and datasets by means of system administration, tools selection and implementation, and explicitly also programming when needed.
Such a unit would up to a point resemble current library service providers like the German regional library consortia and service centres such as hbz, KOBV or GBV, or high level organisations like the Dutch National Library Catalogue project.
Paraphrasing the conclusion of my own SWIB12 talk: it is time to stop thinking publications and start thinking data. This way the academic library could transform itself into a new central data services hub.
(Subject expertise AND data infrastructure) OR else!
Posted on January 5th, 2012 33 comments
2011 has in a sense been the year of library linked data. Not that libraries of all kinds are now publishing and consuming linked data in great numbers. No. But we have witnessed the publication of the final report of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group, the Library of Congress announcement of the new Bibliographic Framework for the Digital Age based on Linked Data and RDF, the release by a number of large libraries and library consortia of their bibliographic metadata, many publications, sessions and presentations on the subject.
All these events focus mainly on publishing library bibliographic metadata as linked open data. Personally I am not convinced that this is the most interesting type of data that libraries can provide. Bibliographic metadata as such describe publications, in the broadest sense, providing information about title, authors, subjects, editions, dates, urls, but also physical attributes like dimensions, number of pages, formats, etc. This type of information, in FRBR terms: Work, Expression and Manifestation metadata, is typically shared among a large number of libraries, publishers, booksellers, etc. ‘Shared’ in this case means ‘multiplied and redundantly stored in many different local systems‘. It doesn’t really make sense if all libraries in the world publish identical metadata side by side, does it?
In essence only really unique data is worth publishing. You link to the rest.
Currently, library data that is really unique and interesting is administrative information about holdings and circulation. After having found metadata about a potentially relevant publication it is very useful for someone to know how and where to get access to it, if it’s not freely available online. Do you need to go to a specific library location to get the physical item, or to have access to the online article? Do you have to be affiliated to a specific institution to be entitled to borrow or access it?
Usage data about publications, both print and digital, can be very useful in establishing relevance and impact. This way information seekers can be supported in finding the best possible publications for their specific circumstances. There are some interesting projects dealing with circulation data already, such as the research project by Magnus Pfeffer and Kai Eckert as presented at the SWIB 11 conference, and the JISC funded Library Impact Data project at the University of Huddersfield. The Ex Libris bX service presents article recommendations based on SFX usage log analysis.
The consequence of this assertion is that if libraries want to publish linked open data, they should focus on holdings and circulation data, and for the rest link to available bibliographic metadata as much as possible. It is to be expected that the Library of Congress’ New Bibliographic Framework will take care of that part one way or another.
In order to achieve this libraries should join forces with each other and with publishers and aggregators to put their efforts into establishing shared global bibliographic metadata pools accessible through linked open data. We can think of already existing data sources like WorldCat, OpenLibrary, Summon, Primo Central and the like. We can only hope that commercial bibliographic metadata aggregators like OCLC, SerialsSolutions and Ex Libris will come to realise that it’s in everybody’s interest to contribute to the realisation of the new Bibliographic Framework. The recent disagreement between OCLC and the Swedish National Library seems to indicate that this may take some time. For a detailed analysis of this see the blog post ‘Can linked library data disrupt OCLC? Part one’.
An interesting initiative in this respect is LibraryCloud, an open, multi-library data service that aggregates and delivers library metadata. And there is the HBZ LOBID project, which is targeted at ‘the conversion of existing bibliographic data and associated data to Linked Open Data‘.
So what would the new bibliographic framework look like? If we take the FRBR model as a starting point, the new framework could look something like this. See also my slideshow “Linked Open Data for libraries”, slides 39-42.
The basic metadata about a publication or a unit of content, on the FRBR Work level, would be an entry in a global datastore identified by a URI ( Uniform Resource Identifier). This datastore could for instance be WorldCat, or OpenLibrary, or even a publisher’s datastore. It doesn’t really matter. We don’t even have to assume it’s only one central datastore that contains all Work entries.
The thing identified by the URI would have a text string field associated with it containing the original title, let’s say “The Da Vinci Code” as an example of a book. But also articles can and should be identified this way. The basic information we need to know about the Work would be attached to it using URIs to other things in the linked data web. A set of two things linked by a URI is called a ‘triple’. ‘Author’ could for instance be a link to OCLC’s VIAF (http://viaf.org/viaf/102403515 = Dan Brown), which would then constitute a triple. If there are more authors, you simply add a URI for every person or institution. Subjects could be links to DBPedia/Wikipedia, Freebase, the Library of Congress Authority files, etc. There could be some more basic information, maybe a year, or a URI to a source describing the background of the work.
At the Expression level, a Dutch translation would have it’s own URI, stored in the same or another datastore. I could imagine that the publisher who commissioned the translation would maintain a datastore with this information. Attached to the Expression there would be the URI of the original Work, a URI pointing to the language, a URI identifying the translator and a text string contaning the Dutch title, among others.
Every individual edition of the work could have it’s own Manifestation level URI, with a link to the Expression (in this case the Dutch translation), a publisher URI, a year, etc. For articles published according to the long standing tradition of peer reviewed journals, there would also be information about the journal. On this level there should also be URIs to the actual content when dealing with digital objects like articles, ebooks, etc., no matter if access is free or restricted.
So far we have everything we need to know about publications “in the cloud”, or better: in a number of datastores available on a number of servers connected to the world wide web. This is more or less the situation described by OCLC’s Lorcan Dempsey in his recent post ‘Linking not typing … knowledge organization at the network level’. The only thing we need now is software to present all linked information to the user.
No libraries in sight yet. For accessing freely available digital content on the web you actually don’t need a library, unless you need professional assistance finding the correct and relevant information. Here we have identified a possible role of librarians in this new networked information model.
Now we have reached the interesting part: how to link local library data to this global shared model? We immediately discover that the original FRBR model is inadequate in this networked environment, because it implies a specific local library situation. Individual copies of a work (the Items) are directly linked to the Manifestation, because FRBR refers to the old local catalogue which describes only the works/publications one library actually owns.
In the global shared library linked data network we need an extra explicit level to link physical Items owned by the library or online subscriptions of the library to the appropriate shared network level. I suggest to use the “Holding” level. A Holding would have it’s own URI and contain URIs of the Manifestation and of the Library. A specific Holding in this way would indicate that a specific library has one or more copies (Items) of a specific edition of a work (Manifestation), or offers access to an online digital article by way of a subscription.
If a Holding refers to physical copies (print books or journal issues for instance) then we also need the Item level. An Item would have it’s own URI and the URI of the Holding. For each Item, extra information can be provided, for instance ‘availability’, ‘location’, etc. Local circulation administration data can be registered for all Holdings and Items. For online digital content we don’t need Items, only subscription information directly attached to the Holding.
Local Holding and Item information can reside on local servers within the library’s domain or just as well on some external server ‘in the cloud’.
It’s on the level of the Holding that usage statistics per library can be collected and aggregated, both for physical items and for digital material.
Now, this networked linked library data model still allows libraries to present a local traditional catalogue type interface, showing only information about the library’s own print and digital holdings. What’s needed is software to do this using the local Holdings as entry level.
But the nice thing about the model is that there will also be a lot of other options. It will also be possible to start at the other end and search all bibliographic metadata available in the shared global network, and then find the most appropriate library to get access to a specific publication, much like WorldCat does, but on an even larger scale.
Another nice thing of using triples, URIs and linked data, is that it allows for adding all kinds of other, non-traditional bibliographic links to the old inward looking library world, making it into a flexible and open model, ready for future developments. It will for instance be possible for people to discover links to publications and library holdings from any other location on the web, for instance a Wikipedia page or a museum website. And the other way around, from an item in local library holdings to let’s say a recorded theatre performance on YouTube.
When this new data and metadata framework will be in place, there will be two important issues to be solved:
- Getting new software, systems and tools for both back end administrative functions and front end information finding needs. For this we need efforts from traditional library systems vendors but also from developers in libraries.
- Establishing future roles for libraries, librarians and information professionals in the new framework. This may turn out to be the most important issue.
Posted on September 2nd, 2011 10 commentsShifting focus from information carriers back to information
Library catalogues have traditionally been used to describe and register books and journals and other physical objects that together constitute the holdings of a library. In an integrated library system (ILS), the public catalogue is combined with acquisition and circulation modules to administer the purchases of book copies and journal subscriptions on one side, and the loans to customers on the other side. The “I” for “Integrated” in ILS stands for an internal integration of traditional library workflows. Integration from a back end view, not from a customer perspective.
Because of the very nature of such a catalogue, namely the description of physical objects and the administration of processing them, there are no explicit relations between the different editions and translations of the same book, nor are there descriptions of individual journal articles. If you do a search on a specific person’s name, you may end up with a large number of result records, written by that person or someone with a similar name, or about that person, even with identical titles, without knowing if there is a relationship between them, and what that relationship might be. What’s certain is that you will not find journal articles written by or about that person. The same applies to a search on title. There is no way of telling if there is any relation between identical titles. A library catalogue user would have to look at specific metadata in the records (like MARC 76X-78X – Linking Entries, 534 – Original Version Note or 580 – Linking Entry Complexity Note), if available, to reach their own conclusions.
Most libraries nowadays also purchase electronic versions of books and journals (ebooks and ejournals) and have free or paid subscriptions to online databases. Sometimes these digital items (ebooks, ejournals and databases) are also entered into the traditional library catalogues, but they are sometimes also made available through other library systems, like federated search tools, integrated discovery tools, A-Z lists, etc. All kinds of combinations occur.
In traditional library catalogues digital items are treated exactly the same as their physical counterparts. They are all isolated individual items without relations. As Karen Coyle put it November 2010 at the SWIB10 conference: “The main goal of cataloguing today is to keep things apart” .
Basically, integrated library systems and traditional catalogues are nothing more than inventory and logistics systems for physical objects, mainly focused on internal workflows. Unfortunately in newer end user interfaces like federated search and integrated discovery tools the user experience in this respect has in general been similar to that of traditional public catalogues.
At some point in time during the rise of electronic online catalogues, apparently the lack of relations between different versions of the same original work became a problem. I’m not sure if it was library customers or librarians who started feeling the need to see these implicit connections made explicit. The fact is that IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations) started developing FRBR in 1998.
FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) is an attempt to provide a model for describing the relations between physical publications, editions, copies and their common denominator, the Work.
FRBR Group 1 describes publications in terms of the entities Work, Expression, Manifestation and Item (WEMI).
FRAD (Functional Requirements for Authority Data – ‘authors’) and FRSAD (Functional Requirements for Subject Authority Data – ‘subjects’) have been developed later on as alternatives for the FRBR Group 2 and 3 entities.
As an example let’s have a look at The Diary of Anne Frank. The original handwritten diary may be regarded as the Work. There are numerous adaptations and translations (Expressions) of the original unfinished and unedited Work. Each of these Expressions can be published in the form of one or more prints, editions, etc. These are the Manifestations, especially if they have different ISBN’s. Finally a library can have one or more physical copies of a Manifestation, the Items.
Some might even say the actual physical diary is the only existing Item embodying one specific (the first) Expression of the Work (Anne’s thoughts) and/or the only Manifestation of that Expression.
Of course, this model, if implemented, would be an enormous improvement to the old public catalogue situation. It makes it possible for library customers to have an automatic overview of all editions, translations, adaptations of one specific original work through the mechanism of Expressions and Manifestations. RDA (Resource Description and Access) is exactly doing this.
However there are some significant drawbacks, because the FRBR model is an old model, based on the traditional way of library cataloguing of physical items (books, journals, and cd’s, dvd’s), etc. (Karen Coyle at SWIB10).
- In the first place the FRBR model only shows the Works and related Manifestations and Expressions of physical copies (Items) that the library in question owns. Editions not in the possession of the library are ignored. This would be a bit different in a union catalogue of course, but then the model still only describes the holdings of the participating libraries.
- Secondly, the focus on physical copies is also the reason that the original FRBR model does not have a place for journal titles as such, only for journal issues. So there will be as many entries for one journal as the library has issues of it.
- Thirdly, it’s a hierarchical model, which incorporates only relations from the Work top down. There is no room for relations like: ‘similar works’, ‘other material on the same subject’, ‘influenced by’, etc.
- In the fourth place, FRBR still does not look at content. It is document centric, instead of information centric. It does however have the option for describing parts of a Work, if they are considered separate entities/works, like journal articles or volumes of a trilogy.
- Finally, the FRBR Item entity is only interesting in a storage and logistics environment for physical copies, such as the Circulation function in libraries, or the Sales function in bookstores. It has no relation to content whatsoever.
FRBR definitely is a positive and necessary development, but it is just not good enough. Basically it still focuses on information carriers instead of information (it’s a set of rules for managing Bibliographic Records, not for describing Information). It is an introverted view of the world. This was OK as long as it was dictated by the prevailing technological, economical and social conditions.
In a new networked digital information world libraries should shift their focus back to their original objective: being gateways to information as such. This entails replacing an introverted hierarchical model with an extroverted networked one, and moving away from describing static information aggregates in favour of units of content as primary objects.
The linked data concept provides the framework of such a networked model. In this model anything can be related to anything, with explicit declarations of the nature of the relationship. In the example of the Diary of Anne Frank one could identify relations with movies and theater plays that are based on the diary, with people connected to the diary or with the background of World War 2, antisemitism, Amsterdam, etc.
In traditional library catalogues defining relations with movies or theater plays is not possible from the description of the book. They could however be entered as a textual reference in the description of a movie, if for instance a DVD of that movie is catalogued. Relations to people, World War 2, antisemitism and Amsterdam would be described as textual or coded references to a short concept description, which in turn could provide lists of other catalogue items indexed with these subjects.
In a networked linked data model these links could connect to information entities in their own right outside the local catalogue, containing descriptions and other material about the subject, and providing links to other related information entities.
FRBR would still be a valuable part of such a universal networked model, as a subset for a specific purpose. In the context of physical information carriers it is a useful model, although with some missing features, as described above. It could be used in isolation, as originally designed, but if it’s an open model, it would also provide the missing links and options to describe and find related information.
Also, the FRBR model is essential as a minimal condition for enabling links from library catalogue items to other entity types through the Work common denominator.
In a completely digital information environment, the model could be simplified by getting rid of the Item entity. Nobody needs to keep track of available copies of online digital information, unless publishers want to enforce the old business models they have been using in order to keep making a profit. Ebooks for instance are essentially Expressions or Manifestations, depending on their nature, as I stated in my post ‘Is an e-book a book?’.
The FRBR model can be used and is used also in other subject areas, like music, theater performances, etc. The Work – Expression – Manifestation – Item hierarchy is applicable to a number of creative professions.
The networked model provides the option of describing all traditional library objects, but also other and new ones and even objects that currently don’t exist, because it is an open and adaptable model.
In the traditional library models it is for instance impossible, or at least very hard, to describe a story that continues through all volumes of a trilogy as a central thread, apart from and related to the descriptions of the three separate physical books and their own stories. In the Millennium trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Lisbeth Salander’s life story is the central thread, but it can’t be described as a separate “Work” in MARC/FRBR/RDA because it is not the main subject of one physical content carrier (unless we are dealing with an edition in one physical multi part volume). The three volumes will be described with the subjects ‘Missing girl mystery‘, ‘Sex trafficking‘ and ‘Illegal secret service unit‘ respectively.
In an open networked information model on the contrary it would be entirely possible to describe such a ‘roaming story’.
New forms of information objects could appear in the form of new types of aggregates, other than books or journal articles, for instance consisting of text, images, statistics and video, optionally of a flexible nature (dynamic instead of static information objects).
Existing library systems (ILS’s and Integrated Discovery tools alike), using bibliographic metadata formats and frameworks like MARC, FRBR and RDA, can’t easily deal with new developments without some sort of workaround. Obviously this means that if libraries want to continue playing a role in the information gateway world, they need completely different systems and technology. Library system vendors should take note of this.
Finally, instead of only describing information objects, libraries could take up a new role in creating new objects, in the form of subject based virtual information aggregates, like for instance the Anne Frank Timeline, or Qwiki.This would put libraries back in the center of the information access business.
Posted on March 28th, 2011 1 comment
The challenges of generating linked data from legacy databases
Some time ago I wrote a blog post about the linked data proof of concept project I am involved in, connecting bibliographic metadata from the OPAC of the Library of the University of Amsterdam with the theatre performances database maintained by the Theatre Institute of The Netherlands.
I ended that post with a list of next steps to take:
- select/adapt/create a vocabulary for the Production/Performance subject area
- select/adapt/create vocabularies for Persons (FOAF?) and Subjects (SKOS?)
- add internal relationships with the other entities (Play, Production, etc.) in the JSON structure (implement RDF in JSON)
- Add RDF/XML as output option, besides JSON
- add external relationships (to other linked data sources like DBPedia, etc.)
- extend the number of possible URI formats (for Play, Production, etc.)
- add content negotiation to serve both human and machine readable redirects
- extend the options on the OPAC side
- publish UBA bibliographic data as linked open data (probably an entirely new project)
So, what have we achieved so far? I can be brief about all the ‘real’ linked data stuff (RDF, vocabularies, external links, content negotiation): we are not there yet. This will be dealt with in the next phase.
Instead, we have focused on getting the simple JSON implementation right, both on the data publishing side and on the data using side. We have added more URIs and internal relationships, and we are using these in the OPAC user interface.
But we have also encountered a number of crucial problems that are in my view inherent to the type of legacy data models used in libraries and cultural heritage institutions.
First let me describe the improvements we have added so far.
The URI for ‘person’ <baseurl>/person/<personname> now also returns a link to all the ‘titles’ that person is connected to (not only with the ‘author’ role, but for all roles, like director, performer, etc.): <baseurl>/gettitles/<personname>. This link will return a set of URIs of the form <baseurl>/title/<personname>/<title>. The /<personname>/<title> bit is at the moment the only way that a more or less unique identifier can be constructed from the OPAC metadata for the ‘play’ in the TIN database. There are a number of really important problems related to this that I will discuss below.
returns among others:
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/En attendant Godot
The URI for a ‘play’ <baseurl>/title/<personname>/<title> now returns a set of ‘production’ URIs of the form <baseurl>/production/<personname>/<title>/<openingdate>/<idnr>.
The ‘production’ URI returns information about ‘theatre company’, ‘venue‘ and all persons connected to that production, including their URIs, and when available also a link to an image of a poster, and a video.
<baseurl>/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot
/production/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot/1988-07-28/5777
/production/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot/1988-11-22/6750
/production/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot/1992-04-16/10728
/production/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot/1981-02-18/43032
The last ‘production’ URI returns:
“title”:”Waiting For Godot”,
“description”:”Beckett, Samuel (auteur: toneelspel van)”,
“description”:”Hartnett, John (regie)”,
“description”:”Muller, Frans (decor: ontwerp)”,
“description”:”Newell, Kym (licht: ontwerp)”,
“description”:”Zaal, Kees (geluid)”,
“description”:”Tolstoj, Alexander (uitvoerende: Lucky)”,
“description”:”Weeks, David (uitvoerende: Estragon)”,
“description”:”Coburn, Grant (uitvoerende: Vladimir)”,
“description”:”Evans, Rhys (uitvoerende: Pozzo)”,
“description”:”Geiringer, Karl (uitvoerende: A Boy)”,
“description”:”Guidi, Peter (uitvoering muziek)”,
“description”:”Kimmorley, Roxanne (uitvoering muziek)”,
“description”:”Vries, Hessel de (uitvoering muziek)”,
“uri”:”/person/Vries, Hessel de”
“description”:”Phillips, Margot (uitvoering muziek)”,
Now, the problems (or challenges) that we are facing here are essential to the core concept of linked data:
- we don’t have actual matching unique identifiers (URIs)
- we don’t have explicit internal relations with a common entity in both sources
- part of the data consists of literal strings in a specific language
These three problems are interrelated, they are linked problems, so to speak.
To start with the identifiers. Of course we have internal system identifiers in our local Aleph catalogue database. Because we contribute to the Dutch Union Catalogue (originally a PICA system, now OCLC), our bibliographic records also have national Dutch PICA identifiers. And because the Dutch Union Catalogue records are copied to WorldCat, these records in WorldCat also have OCLC numbers.
Also the Theatre Institute has internal system identifiers in their Adlib database. But at the moment we do not have a match between these separate internal identifier schemes. The Theatre Production database records are not in WorldCat because they’re not bibliographic records.
We are more or less forced to use the string values of the title and author fields to construct a usable URI, on both sides. Clearly this is the basis of lots of errors, because of the great number of possible variations in author and title descriptions.
But even if the Theatre Institute’s records were in the Union Catalogue or WorldCat as well, then we still would not have an automatic match without some kind of broker mechanism ascertaining that the library catalogue record describes the same thing as the theatre production database record. The same applies to the author, which of course should be a relation of the type “written by” between the play and a person record instead of string values. Both systems do have internal author or person authority files, but there is no direct matching. For authors this could theoretically be achieved by linking to an online person authority file like VIAF. But in the current situation this is not available.
This brings me to the second problem. The fact that we are using the string values of title instead of unique identifiers, means that we connect plays and productions with a specific title variety or language. In our current implementation this means that we are not able to link to all versions of one specific play.
For instance, from our OPAC the following URIs are constructed (two in English, one in French, one in Dutch):
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot : a tragicomedy in two acts
/title/Beckett, Samuel/En attendant Godot : pièce en deux actes
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Wachten op Godot
In the Theatre Production database (two in English, four in Dutch, one in French, one in German):
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting for Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Waiting For Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Wachten op Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Wachtend op Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Wachten op Godot (De favorieten)
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Wachten op Godot (eerste bedrijf)
/title/Beckett, Samuel/En attendant Godot
/title/Beckett, Samuel/Warten auf Godot
Only the first and fourth URI from the OPAC will find corresponding titles in the Theatre Production database. The second and third one, using a subtitle within the main title, don’t even have equivalents. And only two of the eight entries from the Theatre Production database have a match in the catalogue.
In a library catalogue environment we are used to this problem, because catalogues are used for describing physical objects in the form of editions and copies. Unfortunately, also the Theatre Production database just contains records describing productions of a specific ‘edition’ or translation of a play, with only the opening performance information attached.
This is where I need to talk about FRBR. Basically in a library catalogue environment this means that we should describe the relations between the ‘work’ (original text), the ‘expression’ (the version or translation), the ‘manifestation’ (edition, format, etc.) and the ‘items’ (the physical copies). Via the relations with higher level expression and work, the physical copy could be linked to the unifying work level, and then ideally through some universally valid unique identifier to, in our case, the theatre plays.
Although FRBR is a publication centered schema used only in libraries, the same concepts can be applied to theatre performances: the original work (which is the same as the work in a bibliographical sense) has expressions (adaptations, translations, etc.), which have manifestations (productions), and in the end the individual items (actual performances on a specific date, time and location).
If both the library catalogue and the theatre production database were FRBRised, we could in theory link on the Work level and cover all individual versions. But we would still need a matching mechanism on that Work level of course.
In reality however we can only try to link on the Manifestation level in an imperfect way.
At the moment, in our project, on the catalogue side we extract the title and author from the generated OPAC HTML. It could be an option to get available linking information form the internal MARC records (like the 240, 246, 765, 767, 775 tags), but that is not easy because of a number of reasons. Something similar could be done in the theatre production database, making implicit links explicit. But all this makes the effort to get something sensible out there much bigger.
The third problem, the literal strings in Dutch both in the library catalogue and in the theatre production database, prevents the effective use of the data in multilingual environments, equally in the traditional native interfaces and as linked data. Obviously for English speaking end users the Dutch terms mean nothing. And in a linked data environment the Dutch strings can’t easily be linked to other data, in Dutch, English, or any language, without unique identifiers.
Implicit to explicit
People calling on institutions to publish their data as linked open data tend to say it’s easy once you know how to do it . And of course it must be done. But if the published datasets have a flat internal structure designed to fulfill a specific local business objective, then they just don’t provide sufficient added value for third party use. In order to make your published open data useful for others, you have to make implicit relations explicit. And this requires something more than just making the data available in RDF ‘as is’, it requires a lot of processing.
Posted on December 21st, 2010 43 comments
Mobile services have to fulfill information needs here and now
Like many other libraries, the Library of the University of Amsterdam released a mobile web app this year. For background information about why and how we did it, have a look at the slideshow my colleague Roxana Popistasu and I gave at the IGeLU 2010 conference.
For now I want to have a closer look at the actual reception and use of our mobile library services and draw some conclusions for the future. I have expressed some expectations earlier about mobile library services in my post “Mobile library services”. In summary, I expected that the most valued mobile library services would be of a practical nature, directly tied to the circumstances of internet access ‘any time, anywhere’, and would not include reading and processing of electronic texts.
Let me emphasise that I define mobile devices as smart phones and similar small devices that can be carried around literally any time anywhere, and that need dedicated apps to be used on a small touchscreen. So I am not talking about tablets like the iPad, which are large enough to be used with standard applications and websites, just like netbooks.
As you can see, most, if not all of the services in the Library of the University of Amsterdam mobile app are of a practical nature: opening hours, locations, contact information, news. And of course there is a mobile catalogue. This is the general situation in mobile library land, as has been described by Aaron Tay in his blog post “What are mobile friendly library sites offering? A survey”.
In my view these practical services are not really library services. They are learning or study centre services at best. There is no difference with practical services offered by other organisations like municipal authorities or supermarkets. Nothing wrong with that of course, they are very useful, but I don’t consider these services to be core library services, which would involve enabling access to content.
Real mobile devices are simply to small to be used for reading and processing large bodies of scholarly text. This might be different for public libraries.Their customers may appreciate being able to read fiction on their smart phones, provided that publishers allow them to read ebooks via libraries at all.
Even a mobile library catalogue can be considered a practical service intended to fulfill practical needs of a physical nature, like finding and requesting print books and journals to be delivered to a specific location and renewing loans to avoid paying fines. Let’s face it: an Integrated Library System is basically nothing more than an inventory and logistics management system for physical objects.
Usage statistics of the Library of the University of Amsterdam mobile web app show that between the launch in April and November 2010 the number of unique visits evolves around 30 per day on average, with a couple of peaks (350) on two specific days in October. The full website shows around 6000 visits per day on normal weekdays.
For the mobile catalogue this is between 30 and 50 visits per day. The full OPAC shows around 3000 visits on normal weekdays.
In November we see a huge increase in usage. Our killer mobile app was introduced: an overview of currently available workstations per location. The number of unique visits rises to between 300 and 400 a day. The number of pageviews rises from under 100 per day to around 1000 on weekdays in November. The ‘available workstations’ service accounts for 80% of these. In December 2010, an exam period, these figures rise to around 2000 pageviews per day, with 90% for the ‘available workstations’ service.
We can safely conclude that our students are mainly using our mobile library app on their smart phones to locate the nearest available desktop PC.
Mobile users expect services that are useful to them here and now.
What does this mean for core library services, aimed at giving access to content, on small mobile devices? I think that there is no future for providing mobile access on smart phones to traditional library content in digital form: electronic articles and ebooks. I agree with Aaron Tay when he says “I don’t believe there is any reason to think that it will necessarily lead to high demand for library mobile services” in his post “A few heretical thoughts about library tech trends“.
Rather, mobile services should provide information about specific subjects useful to people here and now.
In the near future anybody interested in a specific physical object or location will have access via their location aware smart phones and augmented reality to information of all kinds (text, images, sound, video, maps, statistics, etc.) from a number of sources: museums, archives, government agencies, maybe even libraries. To make this possible it is essential that all these organisations publish their information as linked open data. This means: under an open license using a generic linked data protocol like RDF.
I expect that consumers of this new type of mobile location based augmented linked information would appreciate some guidance in the possibly overwhelming information landscape, in the form of specific views, with preselection of information sources and their context taken into account.
There may be an opportunity here for libraries, especially public libraries, taking on a new coordinating role as information brokers on the intersection of a large number of different information providers. Of course if libraires want to achieve that, they need to look beyond their traditional scope and invest more in new information technologies, services and expertise.
The future of mobile information services lies in the combination of location awareness, augmented reality and linked open data. Maybe libraries can help.
Posted on October 7th, 2010 6 comments
Linking library and cultural heritage data
“Interested to publishing a test collection as linked open data to help @StichtingDEN with practical guide for heritage institutions?” That’s what my former colleague at the Library of the University of Amsterdam, now project manager at DEN (Digital Heritage Foundation The Netherlands), Marco Streefkerk asked me in April 2010.
Was I interested? Of course I was. I had written a blog post “Linked data for libraries” almost a year before, and I had been very interested in the subject since then. Unfortunately in my day job at the Library of the University of Amsterdam (UBA) until very recently there was no opportunity to put my theoretical knowledge to practice. However, in the Library’s “Action plans 2010-2011” (January 2010), the Semantic Web is mentioned in the Innovation chapter as one of the areas with room for a small pilot involving linked data and RDF. I like to think it was me who managed to get it in there
To come back to Marco’s question, I was at the time actually trying to think of a linked data/RDF test, and it so happened that I had talked to Ad Aerts of the Theater Institute of The Netherlands (TIN) about organising such a test the day before! So that’s what I told Marco. And things started from there.
The first idea was to publish a small test set of records from one of the University Library’s own heritage collections. The goal from the point of view of DEN was to publish a short practical guide how to publish heritage collection as linked data, targeted at heritage institutions.
But after some email discussions and meetings we decided to incorporate TIN in this test and apply both sides of the linked data concept: publish linked data and use linked data.
Apart from a library catalogue, TIN also has a large database containing metadata on theater performances and a large collection of audiovisual material related to these performances. The plan was to publish the performance metadata and related digital material as linked data.
The UBA would then use this TIN linked data in their traditional MARC based OPAC to enrich the plain bibliographic metadata if the OPAC search results related to theater plays.
We decided to name our little proof of concept project “Dutch Culture Link”. The people involved for DEN are Marco Streefkerk, Annelies van Nispen and Monika Lechner. For TIN it’s Ad Aerts. For UBA: Roxana Popistasu and myself. Of these five people I knew four already face to face and one (Monika) on Twitter. I think this helps.
To start with, we described the data model of the TIN Productions and Performances database (in terms of relationships or triples) as follows:
- a Play is written by one or more Persons (as author)
- a Play can be ‘effectuated’ in one or more Productions
- a Production can be ‘staged’ in one or more Performances
- a Performance takes place in one Venue on a specific date and time
- a Person can be producer of a Production
- a Person can be director of a Production
- a Person can play a character in a Production, or even in an individual Performance
Besides the metadata TIN also has links from the database to digital collections (sound and video recordings, photographs, reviews). The model is strikingly similar to the bibliographic FRBR model. The Play is a FRBR Work, the Production is a FRBR Expression and/or Manifestation, the Performance is a FRBR Item.
Now we knew who and what, but not yet how. We needed to know how to actually apply the theoretical concepts of linked data to our subject area. Questions we had were:
- which ontology/vocabulary (‘data model’) do we need for publishing the production data?
- how to format URIs (the linked data unique identifiers)
- how do we implement RDF?
- which publication techniques and platforms do we use?
- which scripting languages can we use?
- how do we find and get the published linked data?
- how do we process and present the retrieved linked data?
We definitely needed some practical hands-on tutorials or training. We could not find an institution organising practical linked data training courses in The Netherlands at short notice. Via Twitter Ian Davis referred us to their TALIS training options. Unfortunately, because we are only an informal proof of concept pilot project without any project funding, we were unable to proceed on this track.
However, through a contact at The European Library we managed to enter two members of our project team as participants in the free Linked Data Workshop at DANS in The Hague, with Herbert Van De Sompel, Ivan Herman and Antoine Isaac as trainers. This workshop proved to be very useful. Unfortunately I could not attend myself.
After the workshop we decided to adopt an “agile” aproach: just start and proceed with small steps. For the short term this meant on the TIN side: implementing a script that accesses the XML gateway of the Adlib system underlying the Theater Production Database and produces result in JSON format. The script accepts as input URIs of the form <baseurl>/person/<name>, <baseurl>/play/<person>/<title>, etc. For now only the <baseurl>/person/<name> works, but there are more to come.
An example: the request <baseurl>/person/joost van den vondel gives the JSON result:
“key”:”vondel, joost van den”,
“name”:”Vondel, Joost van den”,
“birth.date”:”17 november 1587*”,
“death.date”:”5 februari 1679*”,
Next steps in this project:
- select/adapt/create a vocabulary for the Production/Performance subject area
- select/adapt/create vocabularies for Persons (FOAF?) and Subjects (SKOS?)
- add internal relationships with the other entities (Play, Production, etc.) in the JSON structure (implement RDF in JSON)
- Add RDF/XML as output option, besides JSON
- add external relationships (to other linked data sources like DBPedia, etc.)
- extend the number of possible URI formats (for Play, Production, etc.)
- add content negotiation to serve both human and machine readable redirects
- extend the options on the OPAC side
- publish UBA bibliographic data as linked open data (probably an entirely new project)
To be continued…