Tools and Services Working Group

Date: June 6, 2002

Present: Laine Farley (CDL), Alice Kawakami (UCLA), Catherine Soehner (UCSC), Geri Ingram (UCSD), Michael Yonezawa (UCR), Roy Tennant (CDL)

1. Announcements

a. CDL Directory: Farley gave a brief update on the status of the CDL Directory following SOPAG’s review of the Task Force on Access Integration. CDL was asked to make minor interface changes recommended by the task force, and to accommodate batch loading of campus titles. CDL asked that at least three campuses commit to using the batch load before undertaking the work. Since no campus wanted to use this capability, no further work will be done on the existing Directory. After Melvyl-T is up, CDL will investigate possibilities for exporting data from it for use in campus directory-like products.

Another effort to improve the Directory was to shift the export to the campuses of Shared Cataloging files from CDL to UCSD, thereby speeding up the process. Ingram reported there were delays due to some changes in the III export software.

b. Review of services at CDL: Dan Greenstein is undertaking a review of the major units within CDL. The Services group will be having several meetings over the coming weeks. The outcome of those discussions may affect the direction TSWG will take in the future.

2. Academic Research Task Models/Usage Models

a. Purpose: Is it possible to develop a reference model of academic research tasks based on previous studies of how users do their work? Is it possible to test this model through empirical, evidence-based research? How can this model guide us? .

Steve Toub is interested in this issue as he begins the redesign of the CDL web site.Ingram reported that UCSD holding forums with different groups of staff and faculty to understand how their research is changing. All members felt this exploration could help us in better understanding which tools might be needed and how to develop them.

b. Review of the literature: We agreed to help by following Steve Toub’s request for a literature review.

Action: A. Kawakami will try to find other user studies. M. Yonezawa will look for research on task models. C. Soehner will do cited reference searches on the list Steve has provided. Due: end of July.

c. Digital reference logs: are we learning anything about user tasks? Alice shared an analysis of their questions to date (about 160 questions). There were 140 questions last term and it is up to 165 this term (since April).It is staffed 37 hours/week. About 14% of questions are from non-UC users. Some observations: professors often refer to a resource in a certain way and then the student can’t find it by that name on the library’s web site or within other resources. The web site lists some categories of questions, but most users need individual answers. There are a few repeat users. See http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/college/digref/.

d. SearchLight Undergraduate model: Catherine presented mockups of a “panic button” approach to SearchLight that might present three databases appropriate for undergraduate term papers: the local catalog (e.g., Cruzcat), MAGS/EAI and Current Contents. The idea was to give users a simple starting place and emphasize general purpose resources, especially those with full text. Users might be led to an intermediate version of SearchLight if needed. Catherine showed screens from Cal Poly SLO’s Data Genie which provided categories of resources.

What next for SearchLight? We could further explore the simple model or focus on more scenarios. It may be possible to use the existing SL software to try out some of these different models in a test environment. How far down this path is it practical to do?

We agreed that there are several desirable functions that should be explored, either as enhancements to SearchLight or as requirements for another product:

• Ability for campus or librarian to select sources on the fly for a subject
• Make access options (e.g., availability of full text) more obvious at the first level of results
• Dedupe citations: e.g., allow user to select and then dedupe from within SL.

3. Tools and Services Framework

Agreed that our Functional Categories and Key Challenges probably don’t need to be revised yet but the task models research could cause us to revisit them. Farley reported that Trisha Cruse is leading an effort within CDL to extend the list of desirable functions for other types of services, based on our experience and future needs in OAC, Counting California and eScholarship. Farley will share this work with the TSWG when completed.

4. Development of Tools and Services by Campus Libraries

a. MyUCSDLibrary: Ingram distributed a user survey regarding whether UCSD should develop a MyLibrary tool. Users were mostly enthusiastic about the idea.

b. ARL Scholar’s Portal: Ingram reported that Fretwell-Downing is the vendor and is going to implement all resources from all of the major vendors. Interfaces are XSLT but F-D will do all of the installation if desired. UCSD plans to include Roger, PubMed, and Sage initially. The project leaders are now focusing on integration and manipulation tools while the implementation of the search component proceeds.

5. UC-eLinks

a. Principles and priorities for next services: All agreed that links to campus catalogs are a logical next step. Links to Ask-a-Librarian services would also be desirable. Alice reported that some of the digital reference software vendors areworking on a desktop icon for the browser toolbar, which would be even better than putting links in individual services.

b. Process: TSWG could develop a list of services for campus comment or we could use our “Suggest a new service” form and process and make a special call for ideas. We also discussed the possibility of having Tier 2 services, where campuses would do the leg work to find out how to implement the service, etc.We decided to wait until after CDL’s internal review of services to decide how best to proceed.

c. Co-branding: Farley asked whether co-branding was desirable and how it might be presented. Thegroup thought there was value in having a consistent name and image across campuses and across resources. If campuses want co-branding, it could be added to the credit line, “UC-eLinks is an initiative of the UCxx Library and the CDL.”

d. Other: Suggestion to add information on the status of various resources on the web page, e.g., dissertations, conference proceedings, etc.

6. Content and Implications for Tools and Services

a. eScholarship: Tennant gave a report on the new repository services launched by eScholarship. Will these resources be linkable, e.g., from UC-eLinks? If so, what is a logical source? [Roy, was there anything else of note? I must have blanked out or thought I would remember because I have very few notes here]

Next meeting: August 22, at CDL, pending outcome of CDL services