Library Catalog 2.0
From LIS5313
by Kelly Kornkven
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
After years of very little innovation, we are now in a time of major changes in library catalogs, more commonly know in the library world as OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogs). While the majority of these new technologies have been present in search engines for years, libraries were slow to adopt them. The purpose of this article is to provide awareness of the capabilities of these newer library catalogs. It will also discuss some of the newer library catalogs that have finally started incorporating Library 2.0 technologies.
[edit] History
The first OPACs were developed in the 1960s and were little more than an electronic version of the card catalog. (Antelman, Lynema, & Pace, 2006, 128) Information seekers were able look up information with the same access points used in the card catalog. These OPACs were very limited in their abilities and could only find data that perfectly matched the data located in a title, author, or subject field. This need for an exact match meant that a user trying to locate information on her cat could search for information on <cat> would find nothing because the proper subject term is cats and walk away thinking that the library did not contain any materials about cats. They were not very user-friendly.
Usability increased slightly with the second generation of OPACs. Boolean logic was incorporated into these OPACs and allowed users to search by keyword. (Antelman, Lynema, & Pace, 2006, 128) Keyword searching meant users were no longer limited to the author, title, and subject fields. Instead users were able to search for keywords across multiple fields. Terms that were familiar to users such as cook book could be located in a keyword search while in the older version of the OPAC a subject search for <cook book> would return with no results because the proper Library of Congress subject term has been <cookery>. While the incorporation of Boolean logic allowed users to become more specific in their searches. They were able to state the need for two keywords to be present in the same record or that they did not want a specific keyword to be present in a record. Unfortunately, for a successful search a user had to understand the concept of Boolean operators and how they were executed in that particular OPAC. (Borgman, 1996, 497)
[edit] Current OPACs
Current OPACs are very similar to the second generation with only a few innovations. Hypertext links now allow users to navigate the catalog in a nonlinear fashion. (Ortiz-Repiso & Moscoso, 1999) A user is able to find similar materials to a known item in a library catalog by following the hyperlinked subject terms. While these hyperlinks do offer extra options, the search is still only able to find other exact matches due to a lack of hierarchical arrangement of subject terms in the index. (Ortiz-Repiso & Moscoso, 1999) Another innovation includes the addition of table of content entries into bibliographic records which add uncontrolled vocabulary keyword search terms. Such terms can lessen the need for in-depth subject analysis from catalogers. (Ortiz-Repiso & Moscoso, 1999) They can also increase recall by allowing users to search with vocabulary they are familiar with instead of an unfamiliar controlled vocabulary.
Throughout the evolution of OPACs libraries have held on to MARC records and the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules for bibliographic information and Z39.50 protocol. Due to this consistency libraries have been able to share bibliographic records without compatible software. (Ortiz-Repiso & Moscoso, 1999) However, this consistency does not come without a price. AACR rules are very precise and were last revised before the real milestones in information retrieval. It includes many elements that where necessary in a card catalog but make no sense in an online environment. This includes the use of abbreviations, main entries, and International Bibliographic Description. MARC is similar with very strict format that does not allow individual libraries to create fields that may serve a unique need. (Ortiz-Repiso & Moscoso, 1999)
[edit] OPAC 2.0
Some changes need to be made to OPACs to move them into the 21st century. The technologies below, which have been available to internet search engines for some time can help turn library catalogs become a part of the Web 2.0 experience and therefore more relevant to current and future library information seekers.
[edit] Relevancy Rankings
Relevancy rankings have long been missing in library catalogs. The majority still work on the old system of last-in, first-out, where items that are new to the collection are the first to appear in the list of results. While some catalogs allow the user to sort the results, these options are generally limited to author, title, or publication date. Due to the popularity of internet search engines, information seekers are used to items being ranked by relevance and MARC records can be surprisingly adept to this role. MARC format supplies content specification for the metadata it holds. Libraries can use this content information to help determine the relevance of items. For instance if a user searches for <macaroni salad>, a relevancy ranking could rate that information in the 245 title field to be more important than the information found in 505 formatted contents field. Therefore, a book with the title 101 Macaroni Salads would be one of the first search results listed while a book called Your Guide to Side Dishes that only contains a chapter on macaroni salads would be farther down the list of results. Guided or Faceted Navigation Faceted navigation is used to show information seekers the relationships between items on the results list. Many different fields in the MARC record can be used to accomplish this goal. Relationships can be present in subject headings, publication dates, classification numbers, formats, and more. Faceted navigation can help users specify their information need. This can be very helpful for information seekers who are unfamiliar with the library catalog and for information seekers who only use one search term. Using faceted navigation an information seeker could start with the search term <pie> and then move to <pie> and <cookery> instead of <pie> and <algebra>. Eventually the user could narrow down the results to find a cookbook from Colonial America with many recipes for pie. For an audio explanation of relevancy rankings, please see the tutorial in the resources section of this article.
[edit] Spell-Check
Information seekers can become easily frustrated with library catalogs and their inability to recognize common spelling errors. At this time, in the majority of library catalogs, if an information seeker accidently types <cookng> instead of the correct word <cooking> the system will find 0 results and the information seeker may walk away thinking that the library does not contain any cookbooks. However, the library could have over 100 items that would have matched the correctly spelled search term. Information seekers are accustomed to internet search engines and their ability to suggest alternate spellings so it only makes sense that this technology becomes a part of the library catalog.
[edit] User Content
In libraries, bibliographic information has always been provided to the information seeker by professional catalogers. This one-sided concept does not mesh well with social aspect of Web2.0. While a professional catalogers may be the best choice for most of the information contained in a record what about the uses of the item that the cataloger may not see? Some information seekers will have a better understanding of an item’s “aboutness” than a cataloger and add information that can better describe the item. Other information seekers could add information about an item’s uses. A student who found one book particularly helpful when writing a report could add a review to the item record stating that and the another student doing a report on the same subject could use that information to help guide him/her in his/her choices.
[edit] Partial Matching
The majority of library catalogs in use today still use the Boolean model for information retrieval. This limits results to include or exclude items directly according to the search terminology. Therefore, if an information seeker uses the search term <cats AND dogs> only items with information about cats and dogs would be included in the results. Partial matching allows books with information about cats to appear in the results list, however, if used with relevancy rankings, items that only contain information on cats would appear farther down the list then items that include both animals. With partial match the information seeker may not find the exact information they are looking for but they will be able to retrieve some information which may help them formulate a better set of search terms or use faceted navigation to help them narrow down their search even further. This ability could be added to an OPAC with the switch from the traditional Boolean Model to the extended Boolean Model.
[edit] Cataloging Innovations: RDA
Major changes will soon be taking place in the world of cataloging which will make the evolution to OPAC 2.0 easier for libraries and vendors. The AACR2 will be replaced by RDA, Resource Description and Access. In an article for Feliciter magazine, Chris Oliver, a member of the Joint Steering Committee for the Development of the RDA, discusses the changes that catalogers will see when moving from the AACR2 to the new standards. One of these changes is how the item is viewed. The AACR2 dealt with items on an individual basis while the RDA will deal with how the item relates to other items in the catalog which will assist in guided searching. The RDA is also very user-centric. All of the changes focus on how the information seeker will be able to use the information to find, identify, locate, and use information. Finally, the RDA is a set of guidelines, instead of rigid rules, that will allow speedier incorporations of new formats. (Oliver, 2007)
[edit] Examples of OPAC 2.0
[edit] Worldcat.org
Worldcat is the Online Computer Library Center’s (OCLC) union catalog. It contains bibliographic records from OCLC member libraries across the world. It is also a wonderful example of the possibilities of OPAC 2.0. Worldcat incorporates all of the technologies listed above as characteristics of OPAC 2.0. The most noticeable characteristics for information seekers are the spell-check, relevancy rankings, and user content technologies. For example if a search term is spelled incorrectly, a spelling suggestion would result in the search. (OCLC, n.d.) As for relevancy rankings, when searching for items using Worlcat, the results are automatically listed in order of relevancy. Libraries participating in the Worldcat Local program can customize their users’ results by controlling the relevancy rankings of the results so items owned by the individual library would first in the results list and then items from libraries belonging to the same consortium. (Bush & Mofjeld, 2008)
Information seekers can also participate in many forms of user content. The most obvious are user reviews of items which anyone can add, as long as they register for a new account. Users can also add factual information by adding public notes about the information's content, such as adding a table of contents. (OCLC, n.d.) Registered users are also able to keep lists of items. Default lists include: things I own, things I recommend, and things to checkout. Users are also able to name and create other lists of items.
[edit] Other Examples
Individual libraries are also attempting to transform their catalogs into OPAC2.0. Two examples are the catalogs available through the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Libraries and Florida State University (FSU) Libraries. The UNC library catalog was one of the first libraries to implement web search engine technologies into their library catalog. They accomplished this through the merger of a library automation vendor and the software company Endeca. (Anteman, Lynema, & Pace, 2006) Working with the two companies, NCSU libraries were able to create a new catalog with such features as relevancy rankings, spell-check, and partial-matching. During usability testing of their new catalog, it was found that students using the new catalog spent less time searching before retrieving the relevant document. (Anteman, Lynema, & Pace, 2006)
FSU's new catalog is similar to NCSU's catalog and contains spell-check and relevancy rankings. Through an email interview Jacqueline Druash, an Instruction/Reference Librarian at FSU Libraries, answered few questions about how their new catalog has effected the students both in her position in the reference area and as an information literacy instructor. It was surprising to find there were not any changes in student behavior with the new catalog. She stated that the students still come up to the reference desk when needing to locate material and that while she has noticed that the students are better able to navigate the new system, it has not been to the extent where she needed to make changes to her explanation of how to use the catalog.
[edit] Conclusion
In this time of change both library employees and library patrons can appreciate the changes happening in the world of library catalogs. This article has attempted to explain new features and guide users to some of the newer library catalogs that incorporate these technologies. Both librarians and library patrons have waited a long time for library catalogs to become more user-friendly. However, from the looks of the newer library catalogs, it was worth the wait.
[edit] References
Antelman, K., Lynema, E., & Pace, A.K. (2006) Toward a twenty-first century library catalog. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(3), 128-39. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from Wilson OmniFile.
Borgman, C.L. (1996) Why are online catalogs still hard to use? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(7), 493-503. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from ABI/INFORM Global.
Bush, A. & Mofjeld, P. (April 23, 2008) Worlcat Local: Discovery to delivery. Retrieved April 23, 2008 from www.oclc.org/info/Worldcat
OCLC. (n.d.) Worldcat.org interface features. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from http://www.oclc.org/worldcatorg/features/default.htm
Oliver, C. (2007) Changing to RDA. Feliciter, 52(5), 250-253. Retrieved April 3, 2008 from Wilson OmniFile.
Ortiz-Repiso, V. & Moscoso, P. (1999) Web-based OPACs: between tradition and innovation. Information Technology and Libraries, 18(2), 68-77. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from Wilson OmniFile.
Sokvitne, L. (2006) Redesigning the OPAC: moving outside the ILM. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 37(4), 246-259. Retrieved April 1, 2008 from Wilson OmniFile.
[edit] Resources
[edit] Audio Tutorial
Music: Pink Ink In the Sink by Pitx and listed under the Creative Commons license of attribution.
[edit] Library Catalogs
Florida State University Library Catalog
