User Tools

Site Tools


shared_services

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
shared_services [2018/09/20 19:14]
admin
shared_services [2020/02/15 11:55] (current)
86.158.250.31
Line 1: Line 1:
  
  
-**Shared Services for library systems** \\+**Shared Services for library systems** 
 +==== Library Hub Discover ==== 
 + 
 +"What is [[https://​discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/​faq/​|Library Hub Discover]]?\\ 
 +Library Hub Discover enables you to search the merged catalogues of UK national, university and specialist libraries; it is is an expansion and development of the previous Copac and SUNCAT services. Whilst aimed at the UK academic and research community, and information professionals,​ Library Hub Discover welcomes use from anyone who may find it of value. Library Hub Discover provides a more complete view of the UK distributed academic and research library collection than has previously been available. You can use Library Hub Discover as a resource discovery tool to help you find rare and unique research material, to verify bibliographic information and to compare library collections. 
 + 
 +How does the Library Hub Discover service relate to the Jisc National Bibiliographic Knowledgebase (NBK) project?​\\ 
 +The National Bibliographic Knowledgebase (NBK) is the name for the aggregation of data being used to provide the Library Hub Discover, Compare, and Cataloguing services. This large data pool allows us to manage the flow of different subsets of data into each service and will support new service development in future"​. 
 + 
 +==== National catalogue/​knowledge base for UK HE ==== 
 + 
 +(Jan 2017)\\ 
 +[[http://​www.oclc.org/​en/​news/​releases/​2017/​201702sheffield.html|OCLC Press Release]]\\ 
 +“As part of delivering on the vision of a UK national digital library, Jisc and OCLC announce a partnership As part of delivering on the vision of a UK national digital library, Jisc and OCLC announce a partnership to build a new shared service that will aggregate academic bibliographic data at scale, improving library collection management and resource discovery for students and researchers.Jisc,​ the digital solutions provider for UK education and research, today announced that OCLC, the global library cooperative,​ has been awarded the contract to develop a new National Bibliographic Knowledgebase (NBK).\\ 
 +The NBK, originally proposed in Jisc’s [[https://​www.jisc.ac.uk/​rd/​projects/​national-monograph-strategy|National Monograph Strategy]], will support the learning and research needs of the UK higher education community. The vision is to extend the capabilities of the current Copac service, by investing in technology that can ingest diverse library data at higher speed and greater volume. The new service will enable a shift in the way that libraries manage their print and digital collections and in the ways that people access those resources. 
 ====== Shared Library Services for Scotland & Wales ====== ====== Shared Library Services for Scotland & Wales ======
  
- [[http://​blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/​sharedlms/​wp-content/​uploads/​sites/​49/​2013/​03/​JISC-Shared-LMS-Report.pdf|Welsh Shared Service Library Management System Feasibility Report]]. Jisc February 2013\\+[[http://​blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/​sharedlms/​wp-content/​uploads/​sites/​49/​2013/​03/​JISC-Shared-LMS-Report.pdf|Welsh Shared Service Library Management System Feasibility Report]]. Jisc February 2013\\
 The Project outputs are as follows: The Project outputs are as follows:
  
Line 19: Line 34:
   * A road-map and timelines for potential implementation.   * A road-map and timelines for potential implementation.
  
- \\ **Post report note**: [[:​procurements|WHELF signed a contract]] for the ExLibris Alma solution in December 2014] \\+ \\ **Post report note**: [[:​procurements|WHELF signed a contract]] for the ExLibris Alma solution in December 2014]
  
 ===== Scotland ===== ===== Scotland =====
Line 62: Line 77:
 ector, where prominent examples include centralised or consortial procurement (e.g. NESLi2) and collaborative cataloguing (e.g. OCLC). Sharing of processes or technology is often considered to be more easily implemented in the public sector, where competitive barriers are lower, but publisher enterprises such as CrossRef have also deployed the model successfully,​ and many library vendors’ systems provide the basis for shared service delivery.'​ \\ ector, where prominent examples include centralised or consortial procurement (e.g. NESLi2) and collaborative cataloguing (e.g. OCLC). Sharing of processes or technology is often considered to be more easily implemented in the public sector, where competitive barriers are lower, but publisher enterprises such as CrossRef have also deployed the model successfully,​ and many library vendors’ systems provide the basis for shared service delivery.'​ \\
 [[:​sconul_shared_services|SCONUL & Shared Services]] The work of SCONUL in the area of **shared services** ​ in respect to the **library systems landscape** ​ is outlined on the '​[[:​sconul_shared_services|SCONUL Shared Service page]] of this wiki \\ [[:​sconul_shared_services|SCONUL & Shared Services]] The work of SCONUL in the area of **shared services** ​ in respect to the **library systems landscape** ​ is outlined on the '​[[:​sconul_shared_services|SCONUL Shared Service page]] of this wiki \\
-Shared Services for [[:​discovery|]] [[http://​rdtf.jiscinvolve.org/​wp/​implementation-plan/​|Resource Discovery Taskforce]] (RDTF) The JISC and RLUK Resource Discovery taskforce was formed to focus on defining the requirements for the provision of a **shared UK resource discovery infrastructure for libraries, archives, museums** ​ and related resources to support education and research. The taskforce focused on metadata that can assist in access to resources, with a special reference to serials, books, archives/​special collections and museum collections. ​\\+Shared Services for [[:​discovery|]] [[http://​rdtf.jiscinvolve.org/​wp/​implementation-plan/​|Resource Discovery Taskforce]] (RDTF) The JISC and RLUK Resource Discovery taskforce was formed to focus on defining the requirements for the provision of a **shared UK resource discovery infrastructure for libraries, archives, museums** ​ and related resources to support education and research. The taskforce focused on metadata that can assist in access to resources, with a special reference to serials, books, archives/​special collections and museum collections.
  
 ==== General information about shared services ==== ==== General information about shared services ====
Line 72: Line 87:
 The 2008 SCONUL and JISC study of Library Systems also saw opportunity in the library domain for more shared services. The vendors interviewed for the study noted that ‘a variety of shared services have been adopted in other geographies ranging from a common LMS to more dramatic changes in physical arrangements. One vendor cited the potential for library management systems delivered through SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) to achieve a 40% reduction in overall cost’. \\ The 2008 SCONUL and JISC study of Library Systems also saw opportunity in the library domain for more shared services. The vendors interviewed for the study noted that ‘a variety of shared services have been adopted in other geographies ranging from a common LMS to more dramatic changes in physical arrangements. One vendor cited the potential for library management systems delivered through SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) to achieve a 40% reduction in overall cost’. \\
  \\  \\
-In the same study ExLibris commented that around 60% of their US customers ‘are part of a consortium of some kind’. They noted that 'there are very sophisticated consortia products that don’t compromise local needs’ and went on to ask. //'//​Why isn’t UK HE good at this? Why isn’t it following good practice elsewhere? Is this something for JISC/SCONUL to help with?’ The LMS study itself recommended that libraries work to: ‘lower the barriers to consortia working and shared services’. ​\\+In the same study ExLibris commented that around 60% of their US customers ‘are part of a consortium of some kind’. They noted that 'there are very sophisticated consortia products that don’t compromise local needs’ and went on to ask. //'//​Why isn’t UK HE good at this? Why isn’t it following good practice elsewhere? Is this something for JISC/SCONUL to help with?’ The LMS study itself recommended that libraries work to: ‘lower the barriers to consortia working and shared services’.
  
 === Defining shared services === === Defining shared services ===
  
-HEFCE takes a broad definition and on its web site makes the following definition: \\ ‘Typically they describe a model of providing services in a combined or collaborative function, sharing processes and technology. In the private sector this is usually within the same group of companies, but in other sectors it will most often be between separate entities. The most sophisticated models involve establishing a completely new organisation,​ run and managed as an autonomous business. The traditional definition of a shared service concentrates on bringing together 'back office'​ functions, often from geographically disparate areas, into a separate organisation. However, a broader definition could offer wider opportunities.’ ​\\+HEFCE takes a broad definition and on its web site makes the following definition: \\ ‘Typically they describe a model of providing services in a combined or collaborative function, sharing processes and technology. In the private sector this is usually within the same group of companies, but in other sectors it will most often be between separate entities. The most sophisticated models involve establishing a completely new organisation,​ run and managed as an autonomous business. The traditional definition of a shared service concentrates on bringing together 'back office'​ functions, often from geographically disparate areas, into a separate organisation. However, a broader definition could offer wider opportunities.’
  
 ==== Shared Services in the library domain ==== ==== Shared Services in the library domain ====
Line 82: Line 97:
 === Origins in shared cataloguing === === Origins in shared cataloguing ===
  
-It can be argued that library automation began with shared services. In the 1960s and 70s '​shared'​ mainframes were devoted to delivering shared cataloguing services across multiple institutions in both the HE and public library sector. Some organisations delivering these services survive. In the USA OCLC began as an Ohio based consortium and in the UK BLCMP (subsequently to evolve in Talis) started as a cooperative project based in Birmingham. Shared cataloguing was facilitated by the development of a shared metadata standard (MARC) explicitly designed as a (global) ‘exchange format'​ for bibliographic (cataloguing) data. Whilst the British Library provided MARC catalogue records it did not develop fully as national shared service. The work of cataloguing records for delivery via BL services is shared amongst the legal deposit libraries and vendors (e.g. CIP entries are created by BDS) but not further. BL data found is channeled into a fragmented market formed of regional and sector groupings and bibliographical utilities (such as those provided by OCLC, Talis and RLUK) and library suppliers. These typically provided for unified access to the catalogue records of multiple institutions for the benefit of library staff (e.g. Talis Base and the RLUK database) and/or end users (e.g. M25, Copac). Scotland has a considerable lead over England and Wales in the development of national shared resource discovery services such as SCONE, SDDL and CAIRNS. \\  \\ Forty years on and the dominant shared service in the library world remain shared cataloguing and associated with that public access to a shared (union) catalogue. ​\\+It can be argued that library automation began with shared services. In the 1960s and 70s '​shared'​ mainframes were devoted to delivering shared cataloguing services across multiple institutions in both the HE and public library sector. Some organisations delivering these services survive. In the USA OCLC began as an Ohio based consortium and in the UK BLCMP (subsequently to evolve in Talis) started as a cooperative project based in Birmingham. Shared cataloguing was facilitated by the development of a shared metadata standard (MARC) explicitly designed as a (global) ‘exchange format'​ for bibliographic (cataloguing) data. Whilst the British Library provided MARC catalogue records it did not develop fully as national shared service. The work of cataloguing records for delivery via BL services is shared amongst the legal deposit libraries and vendors (e.g. CIP entries are created by BDS) but not further. BL data found is channeled into a fragmented market formed of regional and sector groupings and bibliographical utilities (such as those provided by OCLC, Talis and RLUK) and library suppliers. These typically provided for unified access to the catalogue records of multiple institutions for the benefit of library staff (e.g. Talis Base and the RLUK database) and/or end users (e.g. M25, Copac). Scotland has a considerable lead over England and Wales in the development of national shared resource discovery services such as SCONE, SDDL and CAIRNS. \\  \\ Forty years on and the dominant shared service in the library world remain shared cataloguing and associated with that public access to a shared (union) catalogue.
  
 === The role of National Libraries === === The role of National Libraries ===
  
-In some countries such as Australia and Sweden, the National Library has taken the lead in building shared library services. For example ‘Libraries Australia’ has gone further than most in delivering a shared catalogue resource and user access across the whole HE sector and also a large number of other libraries. In Europe, Sweden’s Libris contains references to six million books and journals held by about 170 Swedish research libraries. Virtually all Swedish titles since 1866 are included. LIBRIS also contains references to journal articles, notes, maps, and electronic documents and provides access to a wide range of e-journals. In Denmark there is a National Library Authority ([[http://​www.bs.dk/​|**Biblioteksstyrelsen**]]),​ financed by Government which is in charge of ‘bibliotek.dk’,​ a shared library service encompassing public and research libraries service. It provides search and delivery service for the whole country. ​\\+In some countries such as Australia and Sweden, the National Library has taken the lead in building shared library services. For example ‘Libraries Australia’ has gone further than most in delivering a shared catalogue resource and user access across the whole HE sector and also a large number of other libraries. In Europe, Sweden’s Libris contains references to six million books and journals held by about 170 Swedish research libraries. Virtually all Swedish titles since 1866 are included. LIBRIS also contains references to journal articles, notes, maps, and electronic documents and provides access to a wide range of e-journals. In Denmark there is a National Library Authority ([[http://​www.bs.dk/​|**Biblioteksstyrelsen**]]),​ financed by Government which is in charge of ‘bibliotek.dk’,​ a shared library service encompassing public and research libraries service. It provides search and delivery service for the whole country.
  
 === Vendor provided shared services === === Vendor provided shared services ===
Line 96: Line 111:
 For example an interesting example of a UK vendor provider shared service outside but relevant to Higher Education is the ‘Libscan’ service provided to public libraries by Nielsen Books. The service collects library borrowing figures and uses them to help library authorities determine whether the data they are issuing from their library management systems match, underperform,​ or over-perform other library authorities. LibScan data is available free of charge to participating libraries, which can access total ISBN issues for all participants. Libraries can also view data on all titles they have borrowed. LibScan gathers data from a panel of authorities that gives Nielsen'​s BookScan a weekly list of issued ISBNs that can be used to compare authorities and check national trends. LibScan now has data from 15 library authorities;​ 10 more are expected to be added and Nielsen Book's goal is to achieve 50% coverage of all U.K. libraries by the end 2009. Clearly the more libraries that join the service the more useful it becomes. \\ For example an interesting example of a UK vendor provider shared service outside but relevant to Higher Education is the ‘Libscan’ service provided to public libraries by Nielsen Books. The service collects library borrowing figures and uses them to help library authorities determine whether the data they are issuing from their library management systems match, underperform,​ or over-perform other library authorities. LibScan data is available free of charge to participating libraries, which can access total ISBN issues for all participants. Libraries can also view data on all titles they have borrowed. LibScan gathers data from a panel of authorities that gives Nielsen'​s BookScan a weekly list of issued ISBNs that can be used to compare authorities and check national trends. LibScan now has data from 15 library authorities;​ 10 more are expected to be added and Nielsen Book's goal is to achieve 50% coverage of all U.K. libraries by the end 2009. Clearly the more libraries that join the service the more useful it becomes. \\
  \\  \\
-For the HE sector, ExLibris makes use of hosted aggregated usage data on a massive scale to enable its new ‘Bx’ service. Focused solely on the scholarly domain, bX recommendations are based on actual usage data of e-journals captured through Open URL resolvers. In addition institutions which sign up for the bX service can also contribute usage data and any additional usage data will enhance the quality of recommendations provided to the subscriber community. ​\\+For the HE sector, ExLibris makes use of hosted aggregated usage data on a massive scale to enable its new ‘Bx’ service. Focused solely on the scholarly domain, bX recommendations are based on actual usage data of e-journals captured through Open URL resolvers. In addition institutions which sign up for the bX service can also contribute usage data and any additional usage data will enhance the quality of recommendations provided to the subscriber community.
  
 === Library consortia/​shared services === === Library consortia/​shared services ===
  
-From the early days of computing, libraries cooperated using computing infrastructure to deliver shared services. As stated above Talis began as a library cooperative (BLCMP) in this way in 1969 and has subsequently re-organised into a commercial private limited company. Other regional cooperatives (e.g. SWALCAP) disappeared as SLS (the company SALCAP became) was taken over by Innovative Interfaces. OCLC remains a not-for-profit member-based cooperative though it owns a number of what were ‘normal’ for profit businesses (such as the library management system vendors Fretwell-Downing and AmLib). Businesses such as Talis and OCLC developed their own software and infrastructure on which to deliver their shared services. \\  \\ LMS vendors also provide the software on which a number of library consortia deliver their shared services. Innovative and ExLibris have well developed ‘consortia’ software with rich functionality that goes beyond simple sharing and search of catalogue records. OhioLink, which uses Innovative’s INN-Reach software is a premier exemplar of such an approach. It covers both public and private HE institutions throughout the state and provides resource sharing of both physical and electronic material. A user (student and faculty) at a member library can request a book and have it shipped to them the because of a high degree of integration within cataloguing and circulation control software across 90 libraries. A wide range of e-resources are shared. The scale and scope of OhioLink are impressive: ‘47.6 million books and other library materials. Millions of electronic articles; 12,000 electronic journals; 140 electronic research databases; 40,000 e-books. Thousands of images, videos and sounds; 17,500 theses and dissertations from Ohio students’ \\  \\ California state (‘Calstate’) is migrating to ExLibris provided software and has a similarly impressive scale and claims it ‘ is now the largest university system in the country, with more than 450,000 students and 47,000 faculty and staff members on 23 campuses’. It has done pioneering work with (e-journal) usage data to deliver an experimental (at this stage) recommender service which has contributed to what is now the ExLibris Bx service. \\  \\ Mass cat is a more recent and diverse (in terms of cooperating libraries) example with a mission to provide ‘a unique opportunity for school, public, academic and special libraries that cannot afford network membership to participate in resource sharing’. It has gone down the Open Source LMS (Koha) route as a means of providing low cost shared software especially to small institutions such as historical societies, medical libraries and schools. \\  \\ The Open Source Evergreen began as a solution for a shared state-wide system of public libraries in Georgia. Library consortia have made a significant contribution to Open Source LMS development as they can bring significant collective resources to develop new functionality. For example Project Conifer (a collaboration between Laurentian University, McMaster University, and the University of Windsor) is working to create a consortia implementation of Evergreen for HE and in particular acquisitions functionality. ​\\+From the early days of computing, libraries cooperated using computing infrastructure to deliver shared services. As stated above Talis began as a library cooperative (BLCMP) in this way in 1969 and has subsequently re-organised into a commercial private limited company. Other regional cooperatives (e.g. SWALCAP) disappeared as SLS (the company SALCAP became) was taken over by Innovative Interfaces. OCLC remains a not-for-profit member-based cooperative though it owns a number of what were ‘normal’ for profit businesses (such as the library management system vendors Fretwell-Downing and AmLib). Businesses such as Talis and OCLC developed their own software and infrastructure on which to deliver their shared services. \\  \\ LMS vendors also provide the software on which a number of library consortia deliver their shared services. Innovative and ExLibris have well developed ‘consortia’ software with rich functionality that goes beyond simple sharing and search of catalogue records. OhioLink, which uses Innovative’s INN-Reach software is a premier exemplar of such an approach. It covers both public and private HE institutions throughout the state and provides resource sharing of both physical and electronic material. A user (student and faculty) at a member library can request a book and have it shipped to them the because of a high degree of integration within cataloguing and circulation control software across 90 libraries. A wide range of e-resources are shared. The scale and scope of OhioLink are impressive: ‘47.6 million books and other library materials. Millions of electronic articles; 12,000 electronic journals; 140 electronic research databases; 40,000 e-books. Thousands of images, videos and sounds; 17,500 theses and dissertations from Ohio students’ \\  \\ California state (‘Calstate’) is migrating to ExLibris provided software and has a similarly impressive scale and claims it ‘ is now the largest university system in the country, with more than 450,000 students and 47,000 faculty and staff members on 23 campuses’. It has done pioneering work with (e-journal) usage data to deliver an experimental (at this stage) recommender service which has contributed to what is now the ExLibris Bx service. \\  \\ Mass cat is a more recent and diverse (in terms of cooperating libraries) example with a mission to provide ‘a unique opportunity for school, public, academic and special libraries that cannot afford network membership to participate in resource sharing’. It has gone down the Open Source LMS (Koha) route as a means of providing low cost shared software especially to small institutions such as historical societies, medical libraries and schools. \\  \\ The Open Source Evergreen began as a solution for a shared state-wide system of public libraries in Georgia. Library consortia have made a significant contribution to Open Source LMS development as they can bring significant collective resources to develop new functionality. For example Project Conifer (a collaboration between Laurentian University, McMaster University, and the University of Windsor) is working to create a consortia implementation of Evergreen for HE and in particular acquisitions functionality.
  
 === The place of Open Source === === The place of Open Source ===
  
-In a sense Open source is a '​shared service'​ for the development of software. Open source has been hugely successful in terms of market share in the technology '​stack'​ encompassing operating system (Linux), database (e.g. MySQL), programming languages (e.g. php and Perl), and web server (apache). In the library domain Open source is now contributing to shared service projects in terms of a user interface (e.g. VuFind ) and is just beginning to make progress (outside the UK) in terms of a shared LMS ; for example MassCat (Koha) and Georgia Pines (Evergreen). The OLE project is a collaborative international (but predominantly US) project to redesign a LMS for Higher Education libraries and SOA principles using Open Source. It is not yet clear if the project will proceed to build and Open Source LMS \\+In a sense Open source is a '​shared service'​ for the development of software. Open source has been hugely successful in terms of market share in the technology '​stack'​ encompassing operating system (Linux), database (e.g. MySQL), programming languages (e.g. php and Perl), and web server (apache). In the library domain Open source is now contributing to shared service projects in terms of a user interface (e.g. VuFind ) and is just beginning to make progress (outside the UK) in terms of a shared LMS ; for example MassCat (Koha) and Georgia Pines (Evergreen). The OLE project is a collaborative international (but predominantly US) project to redesign a LMS for Higher Education libraries and SOA principles using Open Source. It is not yet clear if the project will proceed to build and Open Source LMS
  
 === Open shared services === === Open shared services ===
Line 110: Line 125:
 == Open Library == == Open Library ==
  
-In recent years, as part of a wider movement toward ‘open’ data, some open shared catalogue services have emerged. Open Library declares (on its website). ‘This is an Open project - the software is open, the data is open, the documentation is open, and the site is open. The goal is to have ‘one web page for every book ever published’. To date, is has about 30 million records (20 million are available through the site now). It is possible to search across the full text of 1 million scanned books. Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive, and is funded in part by a grant from the California State Library. ​\\+In recent years, as part of a wider movement toward ‘open’ data, some open shared catalogue services have emerged. Open Library declares (on its website). ‘This is an Open project - the software is open, the data is open, the documentation is open, and the site is open. The goal is to have ‘one web page for every book ever published’. To date, is has about 30 million records (20 million are available through the site now). It is possible to search across the full text of 1 million scanned books. Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive, and is funded in part by a grant from the California State Library.
  
 == biblios.net == == biblios.net ==
Line 116: Line 131:
 ‡biblios.net (pronounced '​biblios dot net') contains around 25-million bibliographic records and just under eight-million authority records. The data is maintained by ‡biblios.net users similar to the model used by Wikipedia. It features a metadata editor and catalogers can use and contribute to the database without restrictions because records in ‡biblios.net are freely-licensed under the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License ([[https://​biblios.net/​open-data-commons-license|https://​biblios.net/​open-data-commons-license]]). \\ ‡biblios.net (pronounced '​biblios dot net') contains around 25-million bibliographic records and just under eight-million authority records. The data is maintained by ‡biblios.net users similar to the model used by Wikipedia. It features a metadata editor and catalogers can use and contribute to the database without restrictions because records in ‡biblios.net are freely-licensed under the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License ([[https://​biblios.net/​open-data-commons-license|https://​biblios.net/​open-data-commons-license]]). \\
  \\  \\
-‡biblios.net also includes a built-in federated search system allowing catalogers to find records from any Z39.50 target. A central Search Target Registry, seeded with over 2,000 Z39.50 servers, makes it easy for catalogers to find, create and share Z39.50 targets. ‡biblios.net also offers a ‘social cataloging environment’ featuring built-in forums, private messaging and ‘in an upcoming release’ real-time chat. Joshua Ferraro, the CEO of LibLime, the company behind ‡biblios.net explains the philosophy behind their approach in the following terms. ‘The mission of libraries–to provide open, free access to ideas and information–surely applies to the metadata created BY librarians’ and goes on to say that: ‘To date, libraries haven'​t had a freely-licensed repository of library records to date ….It'​s our hope that ‡biblios.net,​ as well as other open data movements, will usher in a new era of library openness, where libraries can collaboratively create and share metadata with the whole community.’ ​\\+‡biblios.net also includes a built-in federated search system allowing catalogers to find records from any Z39.50 target. A central Search Target Registry, seeded with over 2,000 Z39.50 servers, makes it easy for catalogers to find, create and share Z39.50 targets. ‡biblios.net also offers a ‘social cataloging environment’ featuring built-in forums, private messaging and ‘in an upcoming release’ real-time chat. Joshua Ferraro, the CEO of LibLime, the company behind ‡biblios.net explains the philosophy behind their approach in the following terms. ‘The mission of libraries–to provide open, free access to ideas and information–surely applies to the metadata created BY librarians’ and goes on to say that: ‘To date, libraries haven'​t had a freely-licensed repository of library records to date ….It'​s our hope that ‡biblios.net,​ as well as other open data movements, will usher in a new era of library openness, where libraries can collaboratively create and share metadata with the whole community.’
  
 ==== Platforms ==== ==== Platforms ====
  
-One of the key aspects of the new technology landscape is the rise of ‘platforms’. Google, Amazon, Flikr and a host of services are not just provided as SaaS: they are global scale web based technical infrastructures. They exhibit a number of key characteristics: ​\\+One of the key aspects of the new technology landscape is the rise of ‘platforms’. Google, Amazon, Flikr and a host of services are not just provided as SaaS: they are global scale web based technical infrastructures. They exhibit a number of key characteristics:​
  
   * Data aggregation:​ This is in stark contrast to many collective systems in libraries (such as union catalogues) which are often based on federated search/ Z39.50 technologies. Google et al crawl/​harvest data, store and index them to achieve rapid response times and features such as relevance ranking over huge data sets.   * Data aggregation:​ This is in stark contrast to many collective systems in libraries (such as union catalogues) which are often based on federated search/ Z39.50 technologies. Google et al crawl/​harvest data, store and index them to achieve rapid response times and features such as relevance ranking over huge data sets.
Line 131: Line 146:
 The terms of the offer is that any, a public domain dataset (subject to a size constraint) can be stored in the Platform as RDF, for free. \\ The terms of the offer is that any, a public domain dataset (subject to a size constraint) can be stored in the Platform as RDF, for free. \\
  \\  \\
-Such platforms clearly add a new dimension to the concept of shared services. Currently no library or JISC supported services yet offer platform capabilities and it remains to be seen if they have the motivation, resources and/or capability to do this. Of course in a sense they don’t have to. Borders for example uses Amazon platform services to deliver it own branded service. JISC’s premier service, JANET is a branded HE service run on infrastructure provided by commercial partners such as Verizon. ​\\+Such platforms clearly add a new dimension to the concept of shared services. Currently no library or JISC supported services yet offer platform capabilities and it remains to be seen if they have the motivation, resources and/or capability to do this. Of course in a sense they don’t have to. Borders for example uses Amazon platform services to deliver it own branded service. JISC’s premier service, JANET is a branded HE service run on infrastructure provided by commercial partners such as Verizon.
  
 ==== Business Models ==== ==== Business Models ====
Line 137: Line 152:
 === Vendor provided shared services === === Vendor provided shared services ===
  
-Vendors typically charge customers a fee for use of the shared service. This may be a membership fee (OCLC) and/or annual fee to use the service. The fee is typically balanced so that larger institutions pay more. There are some challenges to this model. As mentioned above ‡biblios.net and Open Library are free. The first is run by a commercial company with a business model based on providing support development and implementation services around open source library software. The second Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive, and is funded in part by a grant from the California State Library. These business models present clear threat to the business mode of vendors such as OCLC. \\ In Norway Bibsys is essentially a state owned, publicly funded company that provides library software and services, primarily to the university sector. ​\\+Vendors typically charge customers a fee for use of the shared service. This may be a membership fee (OCLC) and/or annual fee to use the service. The fee is typically balanced so that larger institutions pay more. There are some challenges to this model. As mentioned above ‡biblios.net and Open Library are free. The first is run by a commercial company with a business model based on providing support development and implementation services around open source library software. The second Open Library is a project of the non-profit Internet Archive, and is funded in part by a grant from the California State Library. These business models present clear threat to the business mode of vendors such as OCLC. \\ In Norway Bibsys is essentially a state owned, publicly funded company that provides library software and services, primarily to the university sector.
  
 === Library provided shared services === === Library provided shared services ===
  
-Services such as RLUK and M25 charge membership/​subscription fees. This may be supplemented by (public) grant funding. Services like Copac are grant funded through bodies such as JISC. In the USA services such as OhioLink and Calstate have mixed funding. They derive income for the state but also from the HEIs themselves which in turn may have substantial private funding. \\  \\ Governance for library based sharedservices \\ In the UK governance of shared service is typically relatively weak. RLUK is a registered company and charity with a Board of members. The M25 consortium as a body is accountable to its membership consisting of nominated representatives from each member institution. Representatives from member institutions set the Consortium’s strategic direction, elect and approve the Steering Group and oversee the Consortium’s budget at two annual meetings. Its memorandum of agreement is ‘compatible with the companies act’ \\  \\ Amongst US consortia/​shared services there is a wide range of variability is how much power the central body (such as the Board of Regents in Ohio) has. In the case of Ohio, it is somewhat strong – each HEI has its own board of directors, but the public funding of HEI comes through the Ohio Board of Regents. \\  \\ Other central bodies for example Cal State are much stronger. Others are weaker (Connecticut,​ Massachusetts). Something that is unique in Ohio in general and OhioLINK in particular is the inclusion of private institutions. That was a strategic decision made by the funding agency to include them so as to improve higher education for all citizens in the state. ​\\+Services such as RLUK and M25 charge membership/​subscription fees. This may be supplemented by (public) grant funding. Services like Copac are grant funded through bodies such as JISC. In the USA services such as OhioLink and Calstate have mixed funding. They derive income for the state but also from the HEIs themselves which in turn may have substantial private funding. \\  \\ Governance for library based sharedservices \\ In the UK governance of shared service is typically relatively weak. RLUK is a registered company and charity with a Board of members. The M25 consortium as a body is accountable to its membership consisting of nominated representatives from each member institution. Representatives from member institutions set the Consortium’s strategic direction, elect and approve the Steering Group and oversee the Consortium’s budget at two annual meetings. Its memorandum of agreement is ‘compatible with the companies act’ \\  \\ Amongst US consortia/​shared services there is a wide range of variability is how much power the central body (such as the Board of Regents in Ohio) has. In the case of Ohio, it is somewhat strong – each HEI has its own board of directors, but the public funding of HEI comes through the Ohio Board of Regents. \\  \\ Other central bodies for example Cal State are much stronger. Others are weaker (Connecticut,​ Massachusetts). Something that is unique in Ohio in general and OhioLINK in particular is the inclusion of private institutions. That was a strategic decision made by the funding agency to include them so as to improve higher education for all citizens in the state.
  
 ==== Analysis ==== ==== Analysis ====
shared_services.1537485297.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/09/20 19:14 by admin