« Design beyond the interfaceDigital Steel »

ILS Basic Discovery


ILS Basic Discovery


With the advent of widely available, powerful network-based search engines, libraries are struggling to keep library services and collections at the forefront of academic research.

In the summer of 2007, the Digital Library Federation (DLF) convened a working group, the ILS Discovery Interface Task Force, to analyze the issues involved in achieving effective interoperation between traditional integrated library systems (ILS's) and internet discovery applications, and to work towards a technical proposal as a solution.

The members of the ILS-DI are:

  • John Mark Ockerbloom, Univ. of Penn. (chair)
  • Terry Reese, Oregon State Univ.
  • Patricia Martin, California Digital Library
  • Emily Lynema, North Carolina State Univ.
  • Todd Grappone, Univ. of Southern California
  • Dave Kennedy, Univ. of Maryland
  • David Bucknum, Library of Congress
  • Dianne McCutcheon, National Library of Medicine


Previous discussions among DLF members, in concert with a poll conducted in Fall 2007, confirmed that many libraries have acquired or have developed external discovery applications that re-present data from their ILS. These applications vary widely in their functionality, and include complete next-generation catalogs, specialized and multi-collection search services, tagging services, current awareness tools, and social software. Further, libraries are increasingly seeking to assemble flexible assemblages of applications and services that optimize the use of bibliographic data.

Standardized interfaces that work across different ILSs make it easier for libraries to add new applications, both open-source and vendor-supplied, that advance their customers' needs. Libraries seek interfaces that allow ILS data to be aggregated for indexing and search, that allow real-time search and query of ILS data, that support customer information and borrower services, and that allow embedding and interaction between OPACs and search interfaces.

We believe this is a significant and hallmark agreement highlighting the commitment of the library community, both not-for-profit and for-profit, to build a robust, flexible, and fertile marketplace for innovative services.

It is a foundation from which to start constructing a new generation of applications that interoperate both at the level of data, and of the individual. Together, we are moving towards an environment where our knowledge of content is easily shared across access environments, and where our ability as users to control the association of our interests and transactions with others is made fully present and empowered.

Below is a document (aka the "Berkeley Accord") that the ILS Discovery Task Force adopted in concert with the undersigned vendors as a statement in support of achieving functional integration of discovery and data.


ILS Basic Discovery Interfaces: A proposal for the ILS community.


On March 6, representatives of the Digital Library Federation (DLF), academic libraries, and major library application vendors met in Berkeley, California to discuss a draft recommendation from the DLF for standard interfaces for integrating the data and services of the Integrated Library System (ILS) with new applications supporting user discovery. Such standard interfaces will allow libraries to deploy new discovery services to meet ever-growing user expectations in the Web 2.0 era, take full advantage of advanced ILS data management and services, and encourage a strong, innovative community and marketplace in next-generation library management and discovery applications.

At the meeting, participants agreed to support a set of essential functions through open protocols and technologies by deploying specific recommended standards.

These functions are:

1. Harvesting. Functions to harvest data records for library collections, both in full, and incrementally based on recent changes. Harvesting options could include either the core bibliographic records, or those records combined with supplementary information (such as holdings or summary circulation data). Both full and differential harvesting options are expected to be supported through an OAI-PMH interface.

2. Availability. Real-time querying of the availability of a bibliographic (or circulating) item. This functionality will be implemented through a simple REST interface to be specified by the ILS-DI task group.

3. Linking. Linking in a stable manner to any item in an OPAC in a way that allows services to be invoked on it; for example, by a stable link to a page displaying the item's catalog record and providing links for requests for that item. This functionality will be implemented through a URL template defined for the OPAC as specified by the ILS-DI task group.

Next steps:

The DLF ILS-Discovery Interface (ILS-DI) committee will prepare a recommendation with a new interoperability profile, "ILS Basic Discovery Interfaces" or "ILS-BDI", that includes the functions above, along with specifications of the proposed technologies (or "bindings", in the language of the recommendation).

ILS and application developers and vendors will support the ILS-BDI using the recommended bindings in future products.

The DLF will publicize these recommendations, and encourage further enhancements and cooperation between libraries, vendors, and applications developers in building more advanced, interoperable architectures for bibliographic discovery and use.

We are all committed to providing the best library services for research and learning. The agreement we are making now is an important step in advancing these services for the library users of today and tomorrow.

- Digital Library Federation, March 2008

Undersigned by:

  1. Talis
  2. Ex Libris
  3. LibLime
  4. BiblioCommons
  5. SirsiDynix
  6. Polaris Library Systems
  7. VTLS
  8. California Digital Library
  9. OCLC
  10. AquaBrowser

 

Abstention:

  1. Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

 

Apr 04, 2008 | Categories: DLF, Libraries | pbrantley

6 comments

Comment from: Peter Murray [Visitor] Email · http://dltj.org/
In your posting of the proposal agreed to by the library vendors present (except Innovative -- why?), it says (emphasis added):

Harvesting options could include either the core bibliographic records, or those records combined with supplementary information (such as holdings or summary circulation data).


Was there an attempt made to make the harvesting of all bibliographic and supplemental information (e.g., all non-patron-identifying-information) a requirement? Getting just the bibliographic records out through an OAI-PMH interface is a step forward, but it isn't a very large one compared to the supplemental information in the ILS that doesn't have a home in the MARC record format. The supplemental information is very important for functions like advanced reporting and indexing.
04/10/08 @ 09:49
Comment from: pbrantley [Member] Email
Peter -

Certainly we recognize how valuable that additional information is for various re-use functions. However, it was made optional to achieve the larger good of obtaining a baseline agreement. One complicating aspect is that supplemental information is not ubiquitously shared in common formats.

The group will continue its work in concert with the community to extend our handling of records, and increase opportunities for services to connect with data stores and systems.
04/10/08 @ 10:23
Comment from: Jodi Schneider [Visitor] Email · http://jodischneider.com
This is a good step forward. What's the timeframe? When is the ILS-BDI expected?

Like Peter Murray, I'm curious about III's abstention.
04/10/08 @ 11:35
Comment from: pbrantley [Member] Email
The ILS-DI is working on a specification, and updates will be provided at the end of the month at the DLF Forum in Minneapolis.

Re: III, I can merely provide the following from Innovative's email response to me:


We generally agree with the comments expressed by our colleagues that there is a significant amount of work involved in fully describing the details of a meaningful interoperabilty mechanism between ILS and discovery. At the same time, we feel that expressing a position on the proposal without the benefit of fully understanding such details is premature.

As a result, we respectfully abstain from commenting on the proposal at this time.
04/10/08 @ 15:18
Comment from: Betsy Graham [Visitor] Email · http://brewing.iii.com
I'd like to point out that the last part of our reply was unfortunately omitted from this posting. "We look forward to hearing more on this proposal in the near future” -- and we do. My response to this post at brewing.iii.com
04/11/08 @ 13:28
Comment from: Jimmy Thomas [Visitor] Email · http://www.tlcdelivers.com
Peter B,
This accord looks fine in principle. After working with 3 different discovery platforms and almost a dozen different ILSs, TLC has a keen interest in the details of the proposed interoperability profile. Please send a copy of the current draft. Could you also send contact info for the working committee? Thanks.
-Jimmy
04/24/08 @ 06:52

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
7 + 3= ?
antispam test
This is the personal blog of Peter Brantley, and the opinions expressed here are his own and are not reflective of any of his employers in the continuum of history, or the University of California, which provides support for this blog.

Join EFF today

Recent Posts

Search

Subscribe

  • RSS
  • Bloglines
  • MyYahoo!
  • MyMSN
  • Newsgator
  • Google Feeds
How to subscribe
powered by b2evolution free blog software

Server manager: contact