The NISO Open Discovery Initiative Update took place on June 27 during the 2016 ALA Annual Conference. The session was co-sponsored by ALCTS, the Library and Information Technology Association, and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO).
Ken Varnum, Senior Program Manager, University of Michigan Library, introduced the goals of the presentation to provide an update on recent activities of the Open Discovery Initiative (ODI), including its work to promote conformance statements from discovery vendors and content providers, the impact of the ODI process on libraries, and the current state of interoperability among libraries, discovery platforms, and content providers. Varnum presented historical context for the inception of the ODI Working Group (2011-2014): an ALA Annual meeting (New Orleans 2011) about emerging web-scale discovery services (Summon, Primo Central, EBSCO Discovery Service, and to a lesser degree, WorldCat). These discovery services are on a continuum of single-index services that ingest metadata and full-text content, including licensed as well as locally created content from library collections and catalogs, to federated search tools that provide access to other indices.
A major goal of the ODI Working Group was to foster transparency throughout the process. Libraries should understand where content served to their users, for example, comes from. Assurance of a baseline for ingested metadata and of "fair linking" from discovery services to publishers' content can ensure that discovery service providers who are also content providers, for example, are not preferencing their own content above the content that other publishers provide. The ODI recommended practice was published in 2014 (NISO RP-19-2014, or 'the Report') as a technical recommendation outlining data elements to be exchanged and includes recommendations for data formats, method of delivery, usage reporting, frequency of updates and rights of use. Varnum explained that adoption of the recommended practice serves to mitigate technical and legal issues that might hinder broader participation by content providers or potential discovery service creators.
Varnum reviewed the sections of the Report, highlighting key areas of each. Next, he presented the recommended practices for content and discovery service providers, respectively. Conformance with the recommended practices assures that content providers supply discovery service providers with core metadata elements, and that when enriched content (e.g., Abstracting & Indexing (A&I) data such as subject headings, full-text, abstracts) is supplied, libraries will benefit by having access to this information. Discovery service providers should implement ODI protocols to ensure fair linking, such that when the same content is available through multiple platforms (a primary publisher and an aggregator, for example), results are not based on bias toward particular content providers. When content and discovery service providers arrange for direct links to content, bypassing the link resolver, libraries should be able to elect choices for linking, in priority order.
Additional recommendations include annual disclosure statements by discovery service providers as to their business relationships in order to assure service neutrality; and use of existing standards to facilitate data exchange between both parties. Recommendations on usage statistics are intended to provide content providers and libraries with information facilitating improved services and decision making. For example, content providers should be informed as to the number of searches leading to their content, and libraries should be informed as to the number of visitors and searches per month.
Following the publication of the Report, a Standing Committee was formed with four goals: promote the Open Discovery Initiative; provide support for content and discovery service providers; provide a forum for ongoing discussion among all of the stakeholders; and provide a forum for ongoing work including revisions to the recommendations and best practices. Varnum introduced the Standing Committee members in a presentation slide, noting that five represent libraries, five represent publishers, and three represent the major discovery service providers (EBSCO, ProQuest/Ex Libris, and OCLC, or "the big three"). He followed with a review of the self-check conformance lists (Appendices B and C of the Report) and a discussion on the topic of why all of the stakeholders should care about the information given in the conformance statements. Libraries need assurance that the depth and breadth of their holdings are exposed to their users. Content providers need assurance that their content is exposed, making serendipitous discovery of additional content via their platforms possible. Discovery service providers can assure content providers that none are favoured over the others; reduce the cost of ingesting metadata by adopting existing technological standards; and more consistently provide relevant results. Shared technology also allows for new content and discovery service providers to more easily enter the arena.
The Standing Committee's current initiatives include A&I Services outreach, library advocacy, conformance statement support, and discovery service outreach.
Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a world-leading provider of metadata services, abstraction, indexing, entity extraction and knowledge organisation models (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies).
