ODI - Open Discovery Initiative
Lettie Conrad, SAGE
NISO Update, ALA Annual 2015
The Context for ODI
• Based on a meeting at ALA Annual Conference in New
Orleans on Sunday, June 26, 2011. Recognition of the
following trends and issues:
– Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions
• Based on index of a wide range of content
• Commercial and open access
• Primary journal literature, ebooks, and more
– Adopted by thousands of libraries around the world, and impact
millions of users
– Agreements between content providers and discovery providers
ad-hoc, not representative of all content, and opaque to
customers.
2
General Goals of Working Group
• Define ways for libraries to assess the level of
content providers’ participation in discovery services
• Help streamline the process by which content
providers work with discovery service vendors
• Define models for “fair” linking from discovery
services to publishers’ content
• Determine what usage statistics should be collected
for libraries and for content providers
3
ODI Standing Committee
• Formed summer of 2014.
• Following the ODI Recommended Practice document as
our guide, this standing ODI committee has the following
responsibilities:
– to promote educational opportunities about adoption of these
recommended practices
– to provide support for content providers and discovery
providers during adoption (including championship of self-check
conformance lists)
– to provide a forum for ongoing discussion related to all aspects
of discovery platforms for all stakeholders (content providers,
discovery providers, libraries), and
– to determine timing for next steps for ongoing work
4
ODI Standing Committee Roster
Libraries
Publishers
Service Providers
5
Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant
Laura Morse, Harvard University
Jason Price, SCELC
Ken Varnum, University of Michigan
Dave Whisenant, Florida Virtual Campus
Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications
Michael McFarland, Credo Reference
Jill O’Neill, NFAIS
Elise Sassone, Springer
Aaron Wood, Ingram Content Group
Julie Zhu, IEEE
Scott Bernier, EBSCO Information Services
Steven Guttman, ProQuest
Rachel Kessler, Ex Libris
John McCullough, OCLC
Areas of Focus
• Education
• Technology
• Conformance
Conformance Disclosure
Content Provider Conformance Checklist – Appendix B
7
Conformance Disclosure
Content Provider Conformance Checklist – Appendix C
8
Conformance Statements
• Published content provider statements:
– Credo Reference
– EBSCO
– Gale
– IEEE
– SAGE
• Published discovery provider statements
– EBSCO
– Ex Libris
– ProQuest
• ODI Conformance
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/conformance/
THE FUTURE OF LIBRARY
RESOURCE DISCOVERY
OCTOBER 5-6, 2015 – BALTIMORE, MD
Thank you! Questions?
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/

ODI-Conrad-ALA Annual 2015 NISO Update

  • 1.
    ODI - OpenDiscovery Initiative Lettie Conrad, SAGE NISO Update, ALA Annual 2015
  • 2.
    The Context forODI • Based on a meeting at ALA Annual Conference in New Orleans on Sunday, June 26, 2011. Recognition of the following trends and issues: – Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions • Based on index of a wide range of content • Commercial and open access • Primary journal literature, ebooks, and more – Adopted by thousands of libraries around the world, and impact millions of users – Agreements between content providers and discovery providers ad-hoc, not representative of all content, and opaque to customers. 2
  • 3.
    General Goals ofWorking Group • Define ways for libraries to assess the level of content providers’ participation in discovery services • Help streamline the process by which content providers work with discovery service vendors • Define models for “fair” linking from discovery services to publishers’ content • Determine what usage statistics should be collected for libraries and for content providers 3
  • 4.
    ODI Standing Committee •Formed summer of 2014. • Following the ODI Recommended Practice document as our guide, this standing ODI committee has the following responsibilities: – to promote educational opportunities about adoption of these recommended practices – to provide support for content providers and discovery providers during adoption (including championship of self-check conformance lists) – to provide a forum for ongoing discussion related to all aspects of discovery platforms for all stakeholders (content providers, discovery providers, libraries), and – to determine timing for next steps for ongoing work 4
  • 5.
    ODI Standing CommitteeRoster Libraries Publishers Service Providers 5 Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant Laura Morse, Harvard University Jason Price, SCELC Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Dave Whisenant, Florida Virtual Campus Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Michael McFarland, Credo Reference Jill O’Neill, NFAIS Elise Sassone, Springer Aaron Wood, Ingram Content Group Julie Zhu, IEEE Scott Bernier, EBSCO Information Services Steven Guttman, ProQuest Rachel Kessler, Ex Libris John McCullough, OCLC
  • 6.
    Areas of Focus •Education • Technology • Conformance
  • 7.
    Conformance Disclosure Content ProviderConformance Checklist – Appendix B 7
  • 8.
    Conformance Disclosure Content ProviderConformance Checklist – Appendix C 8
  • 9.
    Conformance Statements • Publishedcontent provider statements: – Credo Reference – EBSCO – Gale – IEEE – SAGE • Published discovery provider statements – EBSCO – Ex Libris – ProQuest • ODI Conformance http://www.niso.org/workrooms/odi/conformance/
  • 10.
    THE FUTURE OFLIBRARY RESOURCE DISCOVERY OCTOBER 5-6, 2015 – BALTIMORE, MD
  • 11.

Editor's Notes

  • #4 From Library perspective: Web-scale discovery systems are increasingly important to the work of libraries in service of their users. As these discovery systems become more complex, librarians are less able to understand or explain to their users what content is included or how. The Open Discovery Initiative's recommended practice represents a significant opportunity to understand what is indexed, where it comes from, and how it is used.  Increasing need to ensure that the coverage meets our needs.
  • #8 When requested by libraries, Content Providers can use the table to indicate their ODI compliance. A ‘Y’ (for Yes) in column 1 indicates compliance with the indicated paragraph of this Recommended Practice. A ‘P’ response indicates Partial compliance for which explanatory comments should be entered in the last column. An ‘N’ (No) response indicates that the content provider does not comply with the recommendation. Explanatory comments may be added for any response.
  • #9 When requested by libraries, Discovery Service Providers can use the table below to indicate their ODI compliance. A ‘Y’ (for Yes) in column 1 indicates compliance with the indicated paragraph of this Recommended Practice. A ‘P’ response indicates Partial compliance for which explanatory comments should be entered in the last column. An ‘N’ (No) response indicates that the content provider does not comply with the recommendation. Explanatory comments may be added for any response.