In recent years, link resolver technology has become integral to ensuring successful institutional access to electronic content. The corresponding take-up of OpenURL compliance among content providers in response has resulted in a global solution to the ‘appropriate copy’ problem. However, this solution is only effective if the knowledge base behind the link resolver is up to date, accurate and comprehensive and is a factor that is often overlooked in establishing OpenURL compliance. This presentation explores the importance of OpenURL and knowledge bases to the information community as a whole and provides an overview and update of the role that the KBART (Knowledge Bases and Related Tools) working group has to play in improving knowledge base metadata. KBART, a joint initiative between NISO and UKSG, is a working group comprised of stakeholders (libraries, content providers, and knowledgebase vendors) seeking to improve the metadata supply chain to the knowledgebases that OpenURL linker resolvers depend on. The aim of this work is improved quality and consistency of metadata that knowledgebases receive from content providers, ensuring a better experience for library patrons. The first set of recommendations was announced in January of this year. Since then several content providers and knowledgebase vendors have endorsed KBART guidelines. Learn about the experiences of content providers and linking vendors that have taken up KBART Phase 1 recommendations and the working group’s plans for next phase. Discover what libraries can do to improve the metadata exchange between content vendors and the knowledgebases they use.

1. Sherrard Ewing
Provider Relations
Analyst
Serials Solutions
Chad Hutchens
Electronic Resources
Librarian
University of Wyoming
Libraries
November 5th, 2010
30th Annual Charleston Conference

2. Knowledgebase: Holdings information used by an OpenURL link
resolver
OpenURL Link resolver matches against
knowledgebase to determine availability of
electronic full text

3. The supply chain of metadata between content providers (publishers)
and knowledgebases

4. If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is
outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link
resolver efficacy and librarian’s decision making-
process.

5. If the holdings information in the knowledgebase is
outdated/incorrect, it impacts the OpenURL link
resolver efficacy and librarian’s decision making-
process.
In order to expect consistent metadata delivery from
content providers, the requirements need to be
consistent as well.

6. ◦ Who – Publishers, Aggregators, KB vendors, Libraries
◦ What – a universally acceptable holdings data format to
improve the OpenURL Knowledgebase metadata supply
chain
◦ Where – throughout the supply chain & at the UKSG info
hub http://www.uksg.org/kbart
◦ When – Now
 Phase 1 Report – Jan 2010 http://bit.ly/kbartRP
 Endorsement Phase – Began June 2010
 Phase 2 in Development
◦ Why – Better access for users through accurate holdings
data
◦ How can you help?
 Librarians
 Publishers

7.  Standards organizations
◦ UKSG and NISO
 Working group members (stakeholders):
◦ Knowledgebase vendors
 ExLibris, OCLC, Serials Solutions, EBSCO
◦ Content Provider (Publisher & Aggregators)
 ASP, AIP, Royal Society Publishing
◦ Subscription Agents
◦ Libraries & Consortia
 Full list -- http://www.uksg.org/kbart/members

8.  KnowledgeBases And Related Tools
 A NISO recommended practice
 A universally acceptable holdings list format
 Tab-delimited text files
 Delivered via HTTP or FTP
 Guidelines for fields and values
 A single format for sharing holdings data
across the scholarly content supply chain
 Hosted by providers
 Discoverable on the registry

10.  First publisher KBART adopter
◦ http://librarians.scitation.org/librarians/help_file
s.jsp

11. Registry shortcut:
http://bit.ly/kbartreg
istry

12. www.openurlquality.org/
niso.org/workrooms/piej

13.  Culling, James. “Link Resolvers and the Metadata
Supply Chain”
 Inconsistent holding list metadata format
◦ Embargo period format
 Example relative vs. absolute embargo?
◦ Date/enumeration formats
 MM-DD-YYYY? / DD-MM-YYYY?
 Inconsistent metadata update procedures
 (See next slide)

14. Proactive reconciliation of an ejournal package
list
◦ Request title list with detailed holdings info from publisher
(repeatedly, naggingly)
◦ Compare with that of your subscription agent and KB
vendor
◦ Now that you have 3 (or more) different title lists,
translation phase includes dealing with:
 Number of titles and titles themselves
 ISSN mis-matches
 Title changes, mergers, acquisitions, new starts, and losses
 Publisher-reuse of ISSNs/title combinations
 Reconciling date discrepancies manually (and inconsistent/unlcear
formats)
◦ Go live
◦ Lather, rinse, repeat!

15. Similar to the library’s process
 Need to contact providers again and again
 Invest a lot of time correcting data
problems
◦ Investigating end-user queries and complaints
 Update procedures vary by provider
 If unable to get data from provider, may
resort less preferable acquisition methods
(web site inspection)
◦ Last resort, not preferred

17. An end to our role as translators
◦ What would you rather spend your time
on?
◦ Libraries
◦ KB vendors

18. * 4 collections currently
*
 Phase 1 Successes
◦ 4 content providers currently supplying KBART P1
metadata
◦ More in the works
 Phase 2 Progress

19. 1. Review the requirement:
http://www.uksg.org/kbart/
2. Format your title lists accordingly.
3. Self check to ensure they conform to the
recommended practice
4. Ensure that you have a process in place for
regular data updates
5. Register your organization on the KBART
registry website: http://bit.ly/kbartregistry

20. ◦ READ and INFORM yourself!
 “Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain”
 “KBART Phase 1.0 Summary of Recommendations”
 Uksg.org/kbart
◦ LEARN about what KBART is and what it does
◦ ENABLE publisher sales staff to make the case to their
company and point them to the KBART Registry
◦ FOLLOW UP with continued requests as necessary

21.  Lobby publishers to adopt the KBART practices
◦ Promote the importance of KBART…
 When vendor and publisher reps visit
 With your consortial managers
◦ INSIST on ‘knowing’ what you are buying!
 Require delivery of a usable holdings list in your
licenses before you pay
 Initially & annually going forward
 When the list is inadequate, point them to KBART
 Only your insistence will make it happen

22. Phase 1 – Universally accepted standardized
publisher metadata, regularly distributed AND
available on demand
Phase 2 – Broad adoption, Consortia, More
content type coverage (eBooks, conference
proceedings)
Phase 3? – Even more content types, automated
delivery, institutional metadata????

23. Sherrard Ewing
Provider Relations Analyst
Serials Solutions
sherrard.ewing@serialssolutions.com
Chad Hutchens
Electronic Resources Librarian
University of Wyoming Libraries
chutchen@uwyo.edu
Visit the Information Hub:
http://www.uksg.org/kbart/hub
Questions?