Hi,
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:39:01PM -0400, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> bingo. If I can do it, anybody can. It's bigger deal to produce a
> meaningful service because of the inadequate "Dublin Con" metadata
> that is used by default. For AuthorClaim, I need to figure out only
> four things:
>
> * title easy
> * author names easy
> * stable id tough
> * URL to a description of the resource verrry tough
>
> That I still have to do, but I'd be happy to distribute what I can
> come up with.
I'd be happy for this sort of information. Although I think OAIsters
inclusion in "free" WorldCat ("free" as in WorldCat Record Use Policy
efforts) is still a drawback - in case the current search interface
disappears. What lacked OAIster as the most prominent example of
public harvesters in my perception (and you state it later from your
own experience) is the ability to share the information they harvested
and to share it in an effcient way. As you pointed out a file-based
approach with public rsync would be a one possibility.
The final result of such efforts should be an 'improved OAIster':
1) Havesting of as much repositories as possible giving each data set a
unique and stable id.
2) Providing a modern search interface for the end user
3) Providing a standards-complient retrieval interface to be
accessible by federated search engines
4) Providing a way to sync or download all of its data (eg. a dump for
inclusion in local search engines)
Although the OAI-PMH-approach still suggests 'everybody can do it' it
would be nice to have few 'big' harvesters with 3) and even more 4).
When I look around there is a movement for inclusion of external
resources into a local search interface for some time now. So
providing (remote or local) access to all the OAI-data with a
libraries own search interface and with its own corporate identity is
what quite a lot libraries demand.
At the central library of the University of Cologne we currently
consolidated to two different approaches.
On the one hand we seamlessly combined our website with a federated
search (http://www.ub.uni-koeln.de/) giving broad access (but somewhat
shallow, as we're restricted by the capabilities of remote sites and
retrieval protocols) to a huge range of information sources. Here 3)
would be handy.
On the other hand we retrieve the actual data from several resources
(around 179 quite now - local and remote), normalize them and import
them into a local search engine based discovery interface
(http://kug.ub.uni-koeln.de/). With this approach we can only
incorporate data sources where we can get a dump of all its data, but
for the data of these sources we can provide a much deeper access to
our users. As I'm the developer of KUG, of course I'm quite interested
in 4) ;-)
> > I believe this change should be another wake-up call for those who
> > believe that having all services run by OCLC is a significant
> > impediment to the healthy innovation that the library community
> > needs to move forward.
>
> Absolutely. I could not agree more. But we need more sharing,
> and more specialization.
100% agreed.
Regards,
O. Flimm
--
Universitaet zu Koeln :: Universitaets- und Stadtbibliothek
IT-Dienste :: Abteilung Universitaetsgesamtkatalog
Universitaetsstr. 33 :: D-50931 Koeln
Tel.: +49 221 470-3330 :: Fax: +49 221 470-5166
flimm_at_ub.uni-koeln.de :: www.ub.uni-koeln.de
Received on Mon Sep 21 2009 - 03:03:09 EDT