# Presentation: 013086

## DC 2002 - Florence, October 14th 2002 

- DC 2002 - Florence, October 14th 2002** **

## outline

-  Open Archives Initiative
-  NISO OpenURL
-  and ... something on work of the LANL Digital Library Research & Prototyping team

## Slide 3

## core motivation

-  we were trying hard, but ...

## library position

- P
- U
- B

- D I S

- L
- I
- B

**Notes:**
Informatieketen – verbindt auteurs met lezers.  Als systeembibliothekaris: optimizeer toegang tot de collectie. Ik begon me belachelijk te voelen, want de input was verre van optimaal.  Dus daar ben je: de output aan het optimiseren van een systeem met verre van optimale input.  Dus: ik wou daar iets aan veranderen en vond dat de prioriteit in bibliotheekautomatisering (en bibliotheken) moest veranderen van systemen voor toegang tot informatie naar systemen die een minder gestremde doorstroming van informatie konden realiseren. Er moest dus iets gaan gebeuren aan de bron: reposition libraries. 

## the journal system

-  serials crisis: increasing journal prices limit, rather than broaden, access to scholarly research
-  IP drain: faculty signs away copyright
-  publication delay: journal system can not cope with increasing volume of scholarly output
-  criticism of peer-review: suppresses ideas, outcome criticized
-  inertia: system is self-stabilizing

## core motivation

-  we were trying hard, but ...
- could there be other (better) ways?

## preprint systems

-  xxx e-print archive
-  	(Physics - 1991 - Los Alamos - Ginsparg)
-  RePEc
- 	(Economy - Surrey U - Krichel)
-  NCSTRL
- 	(Computer Science - Cornell U - Lagoze)
-  NDLTD
- (Theses - Virginia Tech - Fox)
-  CogPrints
- (Cognitive Sciences - Southampton U - Harnad)

**Notes:**
Zulke systemen waren zich beginnen ontwikkelen buiten de bibliotheken.  Het Los Alamos arXiv was het meest notoire voorbeeld, maar er waren ook andere, zoals NCSTRL, RePEc, NDLTD, CoGPrints etc.

## core motivation

-  libraries as institutions are there to _guarantee access_ to information

**Notes:**
First one has a service connotation.  The second one has a service connotation in the analog world.  But not necessarily in the digital networked world.  So, the question becomes: how can libraries as a global concept fulfill their true raison-d’etre in the most optimal manner?  Maybe no longer service, but rather gathering? Libraries as watchdogs: make sure there is information to be served

## alternative library position?

**capture & share the input...**

- L
- I
- B

**using the global network**

## action!

- scholarly
- communication

## action!

- establish a technological basis that
- allows addressing the other issues.

## action!

-  Van de Sompel, Krichel, Nelson
-  cross-repository searching
-  SFX linking
-  insights regarding lack of interoperability
-  recommendation: _metadata harvesting_
-   launch Open Archives Initiative
-  Ginsparg, Luce, Van de Sompel

**Notes:**
In 1999 not too many libraries were thinking along those lines. So, all the action has been about preprint in general.
Prototype showed (via SFX) how actors were the same in preprint and journal system

The Open Archives Initiative has been set up to create a forum to discuss and solve matters of interoperability between electronic preprint solutions, as a way to promote their global acceptance.

## Luce * Van de Sompel * Ginsparg

**Notes:**
Dat grote dingen niet altijd even ernstig starten wodt geilustreerd door deze foto.  Gepubliceerd in een US tijdschrift na weg-editen van glazen en flessen.

## since then ...

-  OAI:
-  Lagoze, Van de Sompel and lots of great people
-  Santa Fe Convention [2000]
-  OAI-PMH v.1 [2001]
-  OAI-PMH v.2 [2002]
-  OAI-PMH:
-  simple, generic protocol to harvest structured data
-  HTTP based
-  responses are valid XML instance documents
-  unqualified _Dublin Core_ as mandatory metadata format /use of other metadata formats encouraged

## since then ...

-  scholarly communication:
-   deconstructed communication system
-   SPARC white paper on institutional repositories

- registration

- awareness

- archiving

- certification

*rewarding*

## and ... ?

-  OAI-PMH:
-  successful
-  used in different communities (scholarly communication, library collections, museums, e-learning, ...)
-  project funding opportunities
-  fundamental piece of information infrastrucuture (Clifford Lynch)

**great**

**Notes:**
Did all this work resort some results?  Success: Molinas/Google.  Fundamental piece of information infrastructure (Lynch)

## and ... ?

-  scholarly communication:
-  OAI-PMH and associated tools make moving to action easier
-   work of the OAI has helped raise awareness:
-  some national forums discussing transformation of scholarly communication
-  OAI Workshop CERN
- _ __modest_ attempts to new communication models (Caltech, CDL, BMC, ...)
-  the big change didn’t happen

**so & so**

## should we still act?

-  the initial motivations remain valid
-  consortium buying starts to reveal its inherent dangers
-  the IP issue becomes ... scary
-  increasing amount of IP cases
-  copyright debate steered by intermediaries (Big Media), no longer something between creators and consumers

## occurrences of the phrase “intellectual property” per 100,000 U.S. Federal Cases

- “Professor Hank Greely” Cited in Lessig, L. The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world. NY, Random House, 2001.  P. 294.

**Notes:**
Scholarly info should not be part of an IP framework controlled/directed by big media.  The notion of exclusive rights is not really the thing that is required, there. Creative Commons. The one slide sent to you depicts number of references to "IP" per hundred thousand cases and suggests that in the
1990-1999 decade there were 86.37 references per 100,000 cases.

## seems to resonate better with scholarly communication

## should we still act? yes!

-  the OAI will go back to its eprint roots
-  build upon the OAI-PMH to move beyond interoperability at the level of discovery:
-  references
-  usage logs
-  cerfitication metadata
-  rights metadata
-  some of the work conducted by OAI, some coordinated with other projects

## Slide 23

## NISO OpenURL

- http://library.caltech.edu/openurl/
- http://www.openurl.info

## core motivation

-  we were trying hard, but ...

## linking

- interlink related information

## linking

- information providers linking it their way

## problems

-  appropriate copy problem
-  didn’t cover complete collection
-  links dependent on business agreements between information vendors
-  libraries no say in linking => in danger of loosing part of the “organizing information” task

**Notes:**
If you agree that:
Libraries are about organizing information
* links organize information
Then: a big portion of the lib’s task went down the drain

## core motivation

-  we were trying hard, but ...
- could there be other (better) ways?

## .

- link to referenced work** **

**.**

- resource

- resolution of
- metadata into link

***reference***

- conventional linking

- resource

## .

**.**

- resource

- resolution of
- metadata & identifiers into services

***reference***

- OpenURL linking

- provision of hook

- transportation of
- metadata & identifiers

- Operated by Library

- appropriate

## the OpenURL framework

## deployment of the OpenURL framework

-  draft OpenURL specs early 2000
-  lots of interest from libraries, information providers
-  adopted by important information providers
-  NISO standardization  of OpenURL started 2001
-  Integration of OpenURL framework and DOI-based linking
-  SFX server marketed by Ex Libris
-  other parties start marketing OpenURL resolvers (e.g. Fretwell-Downing, Endaevour, Openly, ...)

**great**

## draft OpenURL syntax

-  id=doi:10.111/12345&
-  genre=article&
-  aulast=Weibel&aufirst=Stu&ISSN=35345353
-    &year=2001&volume=14&issue=3&spage=44&
-  pid=2829393&
-  sid=OCLC:Inspec

-  Specific for web-based scholarly information
-  Hardwired metadata tags
-  Not extensible

**so & so**

## generalizing

-  context: web-based information
-  can something like the OpenURL framework be extended to resources that are referenced on the Web  in general?
-  all kinds of referenced resources
-  provide context-sensitive services about referenced resources
-  the Bison-Fute model (Van de Sompel, Beit-Arie - 2001)
-  => basis for NISO standardization

## draft OpenURL syntax

-  id=doi:10.111/12345&
-  genre=article&
-  aulast=Weibel&aufirst=Stu&ISSN=35345353
-    &year=2001&volume=14&issue=3&spage=44&
-  pid=2829393&
-  sid=OCLC:Inspec&

## draft OpenURL syntax

-  Referent (subject of the OpenURL)
-  Resolver (OpenURL resolver)
-  Referrer (the service writing the OpenURL)
-  Entities stuffed into pid of OpenURL:
-  Requester
-  Referring Entity
-  Service Type

## NISO OpenURL ContextObject

-  _Referent_ (the thing that is being referenced)
-  Entities that make up the context in which the referent is referenced:
-  _ReferringEntity_ (the object that references the referent)
-   _Requester_ (the party initiating the transportation of the ContextObject)
-  _ServiceType_ (goal of transportation)
-  _Resolver_ (the system that can be target of transportation of the ContextObject)
-  _Referrer_ (the system providing the ContextObject)

## draft OpenURL syntax

-  id=doi:10.111/12345&
-  genre=article&
-  aulast=Weibel&aufirst=Stu&ISSN=35345353
-    &year=2001&volume=14&issue=3&spage=44&
-  pid=2829393&
-  sid=OCLC:Inspec&

## draft OpenURL syntax

-  identifiers
-  by-value metadata ~ name=value pairs ~ fixed formats
-  pid
-  private data
-  pointers to metadata
-  Resolver described by means of:
-  BASE-URL ~ identifier in http namespace
-  Referrer described by means of:
-  sid ~ serviceId:dbaseID syntax ~ identifier

## descriptors ~ NISO standardization

- Entities in the ContextObject can be described by means of the following _descriptors_:
-  _identifiers_ ~ many namespaces
-  _by-value metadata_ ~ many namespaces
-  _by-reference metadata_ ~ many namespaces
-  _private data_
-  => extensibility to all kinds of genres of referenced resources via Registry

## ContextObject representation

-  Can be represented in different ways
-  Different representations can apply different constraints to the abstract ContextObject notion:
-  Key/Value
-  XML
-  RDF

## NISO ContextObject representation

-  property list format
-  &-delimited, URL-encoded list of Key/Value pairs
-  XMLrepresentations (XML Schema definition)
-  XML representation that matches Key/Value constraints

## Key/Value representation

- rft_id = ori:pmid:9036860
- rft_val_fmt = ofi:pl:jarticle
-    aulast = Bergelson
-    auinit = J
-    year = 1997
-    volume = 275
-    spage = 1320
-    epage =1323
- rfe_id = ori:doi:10.1006/mthe.2000.0239
- rfr_id = ori:dbid:elsevier.com:ScienceDirect
- req_id = uri:mailto:jane.doe@caltech.edu
- ctx_ver = z39.88-2002
- ctx_tim = 2002-03-20T08:55:12Z

- Referent

- ReferringEntity

- Referrer

- Requester

- admin

**Notes:**
Zeker iets zeggen over DC hier.

## XML representation

- _[Click here](file:///../openURL/writing-group/20020922/CERN.xml)_

## Transportation of ContextObject

- via HTTP(S) GET/POST == OpenURL
- ContextObject may be transported using other protocols (OAI-PMH, SOAP, ...).  But that’s not an OpenURL

- So, what’s this NISO OpenURL?

## DC 2002 - Florence, October 14th 2002 

- DC 2002 - Florence, October 14th 2002** **