数字资源的国际标准与数字馆藏管理
The International Standards of Digital Content and
Digital Collection Management
Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co.,Ltd.Bejing
柯春晓 Steven Ke
Self Introduction
柯春晓 Steven Ke
 8 years working for CNKI & Overseas Marketing Development
在CNKI工作8年，一直负责海外市场开拓
 Focus on Chinese Digital Content Delivering globally
一直研究并实践中文数字内容“走出去”问题
 Ph.D Candidate of Peking University, Economics
北京大学经济学院在读博士
 Master of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Information Sciences
中科院硕士毕业，信息管理专业
CNKI Introduction
•
Key project of national information construction
国家重点信息化建设项目
•
Built the most comprehensive system of China academic knowledge resources—China
Integrated Knowledge Resources Database
建成了完整的以学术文献为核心的《中国知识资源总库》
•
Over 90% of China Knowledge resources with comprehensive coverage of journals,
dissertations, newspapers, proceedings, yearbooks, reference works, encyclopedia, patents,
standards, S&T achievements and laws & regulations
囊括了中国90%以上的知识信息资源
CNKI Introduction
Over 1300 institutional customers overseas in 43 countries and regions and 6 million end users
1300家海外大型机构用户，分布在43个国家和地区，600万终端读者
Outline
• 从一片经典的学术论文说起 ——背景
Beginning with a classical article( background )
• 存在的问题和解决思路
Problems & Solution
• 中国知网的观点和实践
CNKI’S Opintion & Practice
END USERS
Students
Faculties
Discovery Provider
Academic Dean
Think Tank
Full-text
Content Provider
Government Official
Scientist
s
A&I Content Provider
Engineers
Libraries
• EDS (EBSCO)
• Elsevier
•Harvard University Library
•Harvard University Library
•SUMMON (Serials solutions)
• Springer
•Tsinghua University Library
•Tsinghua University Library
•JSTOR
•The University of HongKong
•The University of HongKong
•American Psychological
Library
Library
Association (APA)
• Shanghai Library
• Shanghai Library
•American Physical Society
• Sydney University Library
• Sydney University Library
• Primo central (Ex Libris)
• WorldCat (OCLC)
• CNKI Scholar(CNKI)
• DUXIU(Super Star)
。。。。。。
•American Chemical Society
。。。。。。
。。。。。。
。。。。。。
Supply Content
Relationship ,Difficulties, Dilemma, transparency, competitiveness, Standards, Future
The Consultants I invited from this article
Thank you very
much for my relief
troops(救兵).
Bruce Heterick
VP for outreach and participation
services,JSTOR and Portico
Jenny Walker
Director of strategic initiatives,
Ex Libris
Marshall Breeding
Open Discovery Initiative
(ODI) cochair
Bonnie Lawlor
Executive director, National
Federation of Advanced
Information Services (NFAIS)
Linda Beebe
Senior director, PsycINFO
John Law
VP of discovery services,
Serial Solutions
Background
•They are changing the service model of library,
even the whole industry;
• It is really a great progress compare with previous
separated database searching;
•There is great hope that these rapidly maturing
products will provide a fast, single point of entry to
an institution’s relevant and vetted scholarly content.
Background
•
Many academic and research libraries are making significant
investments BUT still imperfectly understood;
•
Libraries, content providers, and discovery service vendors—cannot
even agree on a common vocabulary to describe what they do;
•
Uncertainty about complex issues, such as resource coverage, depth
and breadth of indexing, relevance rankings, and usage reporting；
•
Two groups have begun to explore in earnest best practices for this
complex genre of software；
•
Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) set by National Information Standards
Organization (NISO)
•
National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS)
Background
VS
Resource coverage and indexing
•
LIBRARIANS expect that the large central index that underpins
discovery services will maximize awareness and usage of the
library’s entire collection, particularly for electronic
subscriptions;
•
LIBRARIANS find it difficult to measure how much of the
content they subscribe to is covered by a given central index
and how deeply any included content has been indexed.
•
•
•
Laura Morse
manager of
library technology
Many researchers express concerns about the lack of visibility for what
content is included in the central index.
Whether the included content has been indexed using full text, subject
headings, an abstract, or some other metadata.
Transparency for both breadth and depth of content is necessary to provide
critical information for both librarians evaluating which tools are best for
their researchers and for the researchers evaluating which available tool
should be used to answer a particular question
•
LIBRARIANS often analyze a discovery service after
implementation, but “it’s also important to have adequate
information in advance to help select the best one for their environment.”
•
The depth and frequency of indexing can “make a dramatic
difference” in results
It’s a valid concern, from the beginning,OCLC have tried to be
transparent to our members about the content available
through our discovery service, WorldCat Local.
Jeff Penka,
portfolio
director for end
user services at
OCLC
•
Serials Solutions, for example, provides a list of serials
titles available in Summon that is a PDF more than 4000
pages long.
•
“It’s all there, it’s all very transparent, but is it
practical?” says Law
•
Law agreed that the variety of formats used to describe
coverage makes it very difficult for librarians to
compare competing services.
Problems & Solution to Libraries VS Discovery Provider
•
•
•
Nara Newcomer,
an assistant music librarian
at East Carolina University
Part of the problem is enormousness as well as transparency;
The sheer size of Web-scale discovery products makes it
difficult to evaluate their coverage;
Each vendor provides slightly different information and
formats it differently, making comparison among providers
tricky;
All three constituencies (librarians, publishers, and service
providers)—for a common means for defining and describing
coverage reporting.-------John Law
Background
VS
VS
Questions of neutrality
VS
•
Competitive dynamics can make striking such a balance difficult;
•
ProQuest (the parent of Serials Solutions) and EBSCO both provide discovery
services and content resources;
•
Neither one contributes their A&I products to the other’s discovery service;
•
Ex Libris is impacted even more, since neither EBSCO nor ProQuest contribute to
Ex Libris’s Primo Central index;
•
Leading to the problem of both having to cover that material in other ways in their
discovery service.
•
Content providers are handing over content for
indexing purposes without really understanding the
impact on usage, the indexing itself, the relevance
algorithms;
•
The question of whether vendors favor their own
content was something that needed to be addressed
publicly.
Tim Collins, president of EBSCO
Publishing
Problems of Discovery Providers Competitiveness
Neutrality
Background
VS
Usage statistics
Relevance rankings
Bruce Heterick
VP for outreach and participation
services,JSTOR and Portico
•
The discovery vendors do provide usage statistics, but the
formats vary from vendor to vendor and may not give
certain content providers adequate credit for their
contributions;
•
Libraries rarely have the granular usage data needed to
understand and evaluate user workflows to see the
impact that a discovery service is having on usage;
•
What portion of the library’s resources can be
attributed to the discovery service versus other
channels, such as Google Scholar;
•
A key issue is to be able to measure usage that not only
can be attributed to the discovery service but also
tracked to the content component that triggers a user’s
access;
Marshall Breeding
Open Discovery Initiative
(ODI) cochair
•
The transparency needs extend to relevance rankings with such factors as the
overall size of the index, the ability to easily include local library collections and
the user interface;
•
Content providers and librarians both expressed the hope that more information
about the “flavors” of each service’s relevance algorithm would become available;
Problems & Solution to Content Providers VS Discovery Provider
Jeff Penka,
portfolio
director for end
user services at
OCLC
• ODI should help establish “a framework of value
across all parties.”
• “That will give libraries, publishers, aggregators, and
discovery service providers a common way to
measure both exposure and access;
• the absence of a common vocabulary may be as
important a consideration as the lack of
transparency;
Background
A&I
Content Provider
VS
There are 61 A&I providers that are members of NFAIS. A
minority of pure A&I providers participate in discovery.
They often take much care to create subject-specific indexing
terms, based upon proprietary thesauri and bibliographic rules;
Their content is provided via sophisticated search interfaces that
these A&I providers say offer more versatile features as well as
more precise and thorough results than any discovery service.
Many A&I providers fear adding their bibliographic databases to
the services, which could threaten their lifeblood.
Solution to A&I Providers VS Discovery Provider
• Part of the ODI group’s work will be to foster a
better business environment.
•
Marshall Breeding
Open Discovery Initiative
(ODI) cochair
The model of index-based discovery should
not subvert the interests of any of the
stakeholders;
AT LAST, FINALY
•
Combined efforts of NISO and NFAIS may help dispel some of the
difficulties and tensions;
• ODI will provide a forum for discussion, identify best practices, and
develop a common framework that will support maximum value to all
involved;
• Yes, Standards of
Usage statistics
Relevance rankings
Transparency
Neutrality
Even the business model
All Stakeholders should contribute to finish this STANDARDIZING dream.
BUT
•
•
•
•
How to contribute?
How long it will take to realize?
Who will lead to balance the interest?
Are our users enough patient to wait this dream come true
since there are so many sexy discovery tool outside?
My Opintion
For End Users
• Google style discovery is good but not enough to academic research;
• Real scientific research is impossible only based on this simple textbox;
• The more complex research project, the less capabilities it shows.
For Libraries
• If the discovery system could solve all the service problems
based on that one stop search, libraries would become
database buyer;
• Moreover, there are still so many difficulties above to
become an excellent buyer.
• They need to evaluate their investment and keep their
professional knowledge service.
For Discovery Provider
• They need a motivation or business rule to make more information
available and standard.
For Content Provider
• There must be a model which can make them more comfortable and
relieved to provide as much content as possible.
• They need to control what they provided and how they works in discovery
system.
My thinking
•
•
基本模式为:
行业或学科新闻网+（行业知识库+机构资源库）+机构知识管理与服务平台
• Basic Model:
• Subject based information gateways +(Industry or subject knowledge
databases + institutional repository ) + Discovery service platform
• Subject based information gateways
•
•
•
Academic views, ideas, methods, strategies and countermeasures of scholars
issued on important academic journals and newspapers;
The brief introduction and book review of important monograph published.
重要学术期刊、报纸刊发的学者群对行业宏观问题的学术观点、思想、方法，战略与对策建议；学者发表
的重要行业专著的简介与书评。
NBS（National Building Specification）
•
The subject librarians can design new ideas, new contents and new concepts on the gateway by subject
through analyzing the contents they subscribed and requirement from departments;
•
学科图书馆员可以通过分析自己订购的内容和院校要求，分学科 将新观点、新内容、新概念展示在门户上；
•
The content providers can recommend relate subjects to libraries (by keywords and hot topics);
内容提供商可以为图书馆做主题推荐（通过关键词、主题词）；
•
•
The new idea, concepts, achievement , topic etc. are linking to discovery systems by the keywords for
searching more information;
•
图书馆设置的这些模块，直接通过关键词在发现系统中检索；
•
The end users can browse the latest academic news, dynamic research trend timely through the
professional keywords recommended in addition to searching by himself .
•
终端学者及时浏览最新动态，且不在为选择专业的关键词发愁；
Industry or subject knowledge databases
•
•
It is a thematic database facing to a certain industry or certain subject, subdivided by
knowledge needs, which can provide special knowledge service to different people.
面向某一行业或某一学科专题数据库，按知识需求层次进行细分，为不同人群提供专
项知识服务
•
The discovery system should allow libraries set the knowledge navigation on which the
subject database can be created dynamically, in order to meet personalized service of the
libraries or department
•
发现工具必须允许图书馆自行设置，并动态生成符合本机构特点专题数据库，以满足
图书馆个性化服务；
•
It can realize to statistics any paper from any database provided by any supplier technically.
•
技术上实现，可以统计任何一个知识库中的任何一篇文献来自任何一个具体的内容提
供商；
Institutional Repository
• The libraries may share their IR resources to the discovery system on their
own;
• 图书馆可自愿将本机构的IR资源共享 给发现系统；
• The discovery system can set up search in the library, or open to the
public.
• 发现系统可设置本机构检索还是公开给馆外使用。
Discovery service platform
• Just as easy as summon, EDS, Primo central,
WorldCat
You are welcome to join us the annual conference of
CDPDL hosted by the library of HKU, Tsinghua University
library, Shandong University library and CNKI.
July 3-7,2014, Jinan