cambridge university library new interfaces the future of the opac at cambridge ed chamberlain –...

Cambridge University Library

New interfaces

The future of the OPACat Cambridge

Ed Chamberlain – Systems Librarian, University Library


Overview

• Problems with current OPAC• We are not alone – how others feel• Wither the OPAC ?• New data standards• Resource discovery platforms


Background

• Systems Librarian at the UL for the past 9 months…• Worked on the Newton ‘facelift’• Very frustrated by the lack of options for customisation• Limited in how we could meet people’s expectations for a

new OPAC• Became aware of issues beyond the interface…


Newton / Webvoyage

• No new LMS migration for sometime• Nothing on market to justify pain of migration• Out of all of the Voyager components, the OPAC

is the one showing its age the most


Problems with the current OPAC

1) Architecture • Several separate databases comprising Voyager• Greater administrative overhead for ESS staff • Cause problems with any future systems migration• Universal Catalogue is ineffective at integrating the

separate record sets and providing consistently accurate results



2) Interface quality• Does not meet modern web standards• Lack of customisation options• Outdated conceptions about search workflows• Unable to easily share records and data with other

systems (Marc + Z39.50, no XML)



3) Digital material• Libraries are now providing non-bibliographic resources

alongside traditional material: – ejournals– ebooks – Reference and a&i databases– DSpace holdings

• Metadata held and accessed in separate ‘silo’s’


We are not alone – how others feel

Voyager users• Other Voyager users report similar issues with their

OPAC’s• Expecting a new OPAC two years ago…• Delayed by the Ex-Libris / Endeavor merger• Due as part of Voyager 7


Voyager 7 update

• New version of Webvoyage as part of Voyager 7• Unlikely to be anything radically different• Hope for better quality interface• Problems with multiple databases, duplicate

records and record quality will still be present …



Other system users

• Of 66 survey respondents:

– 51 respondents do not love their OPACs, some expressing frustration or even outright hostility

– Four respondents do love their OPACs– Six are neutral

- XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007

http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf



Other system users

• The top issues expressed in these complaints were…

– Difficulty of customization (42 instances)– Inadequacy of search functions (31 instances)– Opacity of results and lack of grouping or faceting (27 instances)– Limitations of the user interface (16 instances)– Lack of Web 2.0 functionality (9 instances)– Backend problems (8 instances)– Lack of integration with databases or other systems (8 instances)

- XC Survey Report, University of Rochester, July 2007

http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/XC%20survey%20report.pdf


Wither the OPAC ?

• OPACS have fallen ‘behind the times’• Less relevant alongside e-resource platforms• Highly structured – 2-3 levels of screens to get

to results• Users expect search results within one click• Expect spellchecking, error messages, better

help


New data container standards

• MARC is old (40+ years)• Inefficient and unfriendly means to store data• Rest of the world uses XML – (MARC-XML,

MODS)


New data content standards

• Resource Description and Access (RDA) • Functional requirements for bibliographic

records (FRBR)• Semantic web technologies – (RDF)


Resource Discovery Platforms

• Growth of Resource Discovery Platforms • Separate platform for metadata• De-couple front end from the backend

management system


Resource Discovery Platforms

• Single point of search for a library• Encompass and amalgamate data from:

– Multiple LMS catalogues (Voyager)– ERM interfaces and knowledge bases (SFX,

Metasearch)– Local repositories (Dspace)


Resource discovery platforms

Interface• The ‘Google generation’ expects keyword

searching• Keyword based searching using traditionally

created records – argued that this gives a ‘best of both worlds’ fit


Products on the market

• Primo by Ex Libris• Prism 3 from Talis• Encore from III• Aquabrowser from Vubis (formerly GEAC)• Endeca information platform


Problems

• Potentially difficult to argue a funding case for, should this functionality not be part of an LMS anyway ?

• Data problems still remain – and would hamper any migration to a new LMS itself, let alone a new interface


Data problems

• Only solves the multiple database problem for the users

• New interfaces exposes old problems with data• Presentation of bib records alongside data from

A&I databases – risk of ‘swamping results’


What next ?For us…• Continue to support and develop Newton where

feasible• Track and investigate all options for a

replacement interface encompassing all library materials in Cambridge


What next ?For you…• Think about our consortia model • Data over container - i.e. AACR2 over MARC• How it would sit alongside non-MARC data


Thank you

• Ed Chamberlain - [email protected]

cambridge university library new interfaces the future of the opac at cambridge ed chamberlain –...

Documents

interface slide

university of rochester

new opac

xml slide

present slide

current opac

voyager users

instances backend problems