Everybody's Libraries

April 29, 2013

March 4, 2013

From Wikipedia to our libraries

Filed under: citizen librarians,discovery,libraries,online books,subjects — John Mark Ockerbloom @ 4:44 pm

I’ve heard the lament in more than one library discussion over the years.  “People aren’t coming to our library like they should,” librarians have told me.  “We’ve got a rich collection, and we’ve expended lots of resources on an online presence, but lots of our patrons just go to Google and Wikipedia without checking to see what we have.”  The pattern of quick online information-finding using search engines and Wikipedia is well-known enough that it has its own acronym: GWR, for Google -> Wikipedia -> References.  (David White gives a good description of that pattern in the linked article.)

Some people I’ve talked to think we should break this pattern.  With the right search tool or marketing plan, some say, we can get patrons to start with us first, instead of Google or Wikipedia.  This idea seems to me both futile and beside the point.  Between them, Google and Wikipedia cover a vast array of online information, more than librarians could hope to replicate or index ourselves in that medium.  Also, if we truly have better resources available in our libraries than can be found on the open Web, it’s less important that our researchers start from our libraries’ websites than that they end up finding the knowledge resources our libraries make available to them.

Looked at the right way, Wikipedia can be a big help in making online readers aware of their library’s offerings.  One of the things we spend a lot of time on in libraries is organizing information into distinct, conceptual categories.  That’s what Wikipedia does too: so far,  their English edition has over 4 million concepts identified, described, and often populated with reference links.  And Wikipedia has encouraged people to add links to relevant digital library collections on various topics, through programs like Wikipedia Loves Libraries and Wikipedian in Residence programs.  But while these programs help bring some library resources online, and direct people to those selected resources, there’s still a lot of other relevant library material that users can’t get to via Wikipedia, but can via the libraries that are near them.

So how do we get people from Wikipedia articles to the related offerings of our local libraries?  Essentially we need three things: First, we need ways to embed links in Wikipedia to the libraries that readers use.  (We can’t reasonably add individual links from an article to each library out there, because there are too many of them– there has to be a way that each Wikipedia reader can get to their own favored libraries via the same links.)  Second, we need ways to derive appropriate library concepts and local searches from the subjects of Wikipedia articles, so the links go somewhere useful.  Finally, we need good summaries of the resources a reader’s library makes available on those concepts, so the links end up showing something useful.  With all of these in place, it should be possible for researchers to get from a Wikipedia article on a topic straight to a guide to their local library’s offerings on that topic in a single click.

I’ve developed some tools to enable these one-click Wikipedia -> library transitions.  For the first thing we need, I’ve created a set of Wikipedia templates for adding library links. The documentation for the Library resources box template, for instance, describes how to use it to create a sidebar box with links to resources about (or by) the topic of  a Wikipedia article in a reader’s library, or in another library a reader might want to consult.  (There’s also an option for direct links to my Online Books Page, if there are relevant books online; it may be easier in some cases for readers to access those than to access their local library’s books.)

For the links to work, we need to know about the reader’s preferred library.  Users can register their preferred library (which will set a cookie in their browser recording that choice), or select it for each individual search.  We know how to link to several dozen libraries so far, and can add more libraries on requestWorldcat.org, which includes holdings of thousands of libraries worldwide, is also an option.  Besides the “Library resources box” template, I’ve also provided templates for in-text links to library resources, if those work better in a given article.  Links to these templates can be found at the end of the “Library resources box” documentation.

For the second thing we need, I’ve created a library forwarding service (“Forward to Libraries”, or FTL– catchier name suggestions welcome) that transforms links from Wikipedia into searches for appropriate  headings or keywords in local libraries.  This is the same service I describe in my “From my library to yours” blog post from last month, but it now supports links from Wikipedia as well as to Wikipedia.

Thanks to information included in the Library of Congress’ Authorities and Vocabularies datasets, OCLC’s VIAF data feeds, Wikipedia’s database downloads, and my own metadata compiled at The Online Books Page, FTL already knows how to link directly to over 240,000 distinct authority-controlled headings known to the Library of Congress from their corresponding Wikipedia articles.   (Library of Congress headings are used in most sizable US libraries, and many English-language libraries outside the US also use similar headings.)

For other articles, FTL by default will try a general keyword search based on the Wikipedia article’s title, which will often turn up useful results at the destination library.  Alternatively, my templates allow Wikipedia editors to determine a specific Library of Congress heading to use in library links, if appropriate.  I’m hoping to incorporate suggested headings into FTL’s own knowledge base as I detect them showing up in Wikipedia articles.  I also plan to publish FTL’s data sets under open access terms, so that others can use and improve on them as well.

The third part of this solution– displaying relevant resources at the destination library– can be implemented differently at each library.  For most of the libraries in FTL’s current knowledge base, links go to searches in the library’s regular online catalog.  But with some libraries, I’ve linked to another discovery system, if it seems to be the main search promoted at that library, and it seems to produce useful results.  The Online Books Page’s subject map displays also have features that I think will be useful to Wikipedia subject researchers arriving at my site, such as also showing related subjects and books filed under those subjects.  I hope in future posts to talk more about other useful guideposts and contextual information we could be providing to readers arriving from Wikipedia.

But if you’ve read this far, you probably want to see how this all works in practice.  So I’ve added some example library resources boxes in a few Wikipedia articles that seemed particularly relevant this month, including those for Women’s history, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Flannery O’Connor.  Look down in the “External links” or “Further reading” sections of those articles for the boxes, and view the page source of the articles to see how those boxes are constructed.

As with most things related to Wikipedia, this service is experimental, and subject to change (and, hopefully,  improvement) over time.  I’d love to hear thoughts and suggestions from users and maintainers of Wikipedia and libraries.  And if you find creating these sort of links from Wikipedia useful, and need help getting started, I’d be happy to help you bring them to your favorite Wikipedia topics and local libraries, as time permits.

October 29, 2010

October 18, 2010

July 31, 2010

Keeping subjects up to date with open data

Filed under: data,discovery,online books,open access,sharing,subjects — John Mark Ockerbloom @ 11:51 pm

In an earlier post, I discussed how I was using the open data from the Library of Congress’ Authorities and Vocabularies service to enhance subject browsing on The Online Books Page.  More recently, I’ve used the same data to make my subjects more consistent and up to date.  In this post, I’ll describe why I need to do this, and why doing it isn’t as hard as I feared that it might be.

The Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) is a standard set of subject names, descriptions, and relationships, begun in 1898, and periodically updated ever since. The names of its subjects have shifted over time, particularly in recent years.  For instance, recently subject terms mentioning “Cookery”, a word more common in the 1800s than now, were changed to use the word “Cooking“, a term that today’s library patrons are much more likely to use.

It’s good for local library catalogs that use LCSH to keep in sync with the most up to date version, not only to better match modern usage, but also to keep catalog records consistent with each other.  Especially as libraries share their online books and associated catalog records, it’s particularly important that books on the same subject use the same, up-to-date terms.  No one wants to have to search under lots of different headings, especially obsolete ones, when they’re looking for books on a particular topic.

Libraries with large, long-standing catalogs often have a hard time staying current, however.  The catalog of the university library where I work, for instance, still has some books on airplanes filed under “Aeroplanes”, a term that recalls the long-gone days when open-cockpit daredevils dominated the air.  With new items arriving every day to be cataloged, though, keeping millions of legacy records up to date can be seen as more trouble than it’s worth.

But your catalog doesn’t have to be big or old to fall out of sync.  It happens faster than you might think.   The Online Books Page currently has just over 40,000 records in its catalog, about 1% of the size of my university’s.   I only started adding LC subject headings in 2006.  I tried to make sure I was adding valid subject headings, and made changes when I heard about major term renamings (such as “Cookery” to “Cooking”).  Still, I was startled to find out that only 4 years after I’d started, hundreds of subject headings I’d assigned were already out of date, or otherwise replaced by other standardized headings.  Fortunately, I was able to find this out, and bring the records up to date, in a matter of hours, thanks to automated analysis of the open data from the Library of Congress.  Furthermore, as I updated my records manually, I became confident I could automate most of the updates, making the job faster still.

Here’s how I did it.  After downloading a fresh set of LC subject headings records in RDF, I ran a script over the data that compiled an index of authorized headings (the proper ones to use), alternate headings (the obsolete or otherwise discouraged headings), and lists of which authorized headings were used for which alternate headings. The RDF file currently contains about 390,000 authorized subject headings, and about 330,000 alternate headings.

Then I extracted all the subjects from my catalog.  (I currently have about 38,000 unique subjects.)  Then I had a script check each subject see if it was listed as an authorized heading in the RDF file.  If not, I checked to see if it was an alternate heading.  If neither was the case, and the subject had subdivisions (e.g. “Airplanes — History”) I removed a subdivision from the end and repeated the checks until a term was found in either the authorized or alternate category, or I ran out of subdivisions.

This turned up 286 unique subjects that needed replacement– over 3/4 of 1% of my headings, in less than 4 years.  (My script originally identified even more, until I realized I had to ignore the simple geographic or personal names.  Those aren’t yet in LC’s RDF file, but a few of them show up as alternate headings for other subjects.)  These 286 headings (some of them the same except for subdivisions) represented 225 distinct substitutions.  The bad headings were used in hundreds of bibliographic records, the most popular full heading being used 27 times. The vast majority of the full headings, though, were used in only one record.

What was I to replace these headings with?  Some of the headings had multiple possibilities. “Royalty” was an alternate heading for 5 different authorized headings: “Royal houses”, “Kings and rulers”, “Queens”, “Princes” and “Princesses”.   But that was the exception rather than the rule.  All but 10 of my bad headings were alternates for only one authorized heading.  After “Royalty”, the remaining 9 alternate headings presented a choice between two authorized forms.

When there’s only 1 authorized heading to go to, it’s pretty simple to have a script do the substitution automatically.  As I verified while doing the substitutions manually, nearly all the time the automatable substitution made sense.  (There were a few that didn’t: for instance. when “Mind and body — Early works to 1850″ is replaced by “Mind and body — Early works to 1800“, works first published between 1800 and 1850 get misfiled.  But few substitutions were problematic like this– and those involving dates, like this one, can be flagged by a clever script.)

If I were doing the update over again, I’ll feel more comfortable letting a script automatically reassign, and not just identify, most of my obsolete headings.  I’d still want to manually inspect changes that affect more than one or two records, to make sure I wasn’t messing up lots of records in the same way; and I’d also want to manually handle cases where more than one term could be substituted.  The rest– the vast majority of the edits– could be done fully automatically.  The occasional erroneous reassignment of a single record would be more than made up by the repair of many more obsolete and erroneous old records.  (And if my script logs changes properly, I can roll back problematic ones later on if need be.)

Mind you, now that I’ve brought my headings up to date once, I expect that further updates will be quicker anyway.  The Library of Congress releases new LCSH RDF files about every 1-2 months.  There should be many fewer changes in most such incremental updates than there would be when doing years’ worth of updates all at once.

Looking at the evolution of the Library of Congress catalog over time, I suspect that they do a lot of this sort of automatic updating already.  But many other libraries don’t, or don’t do it thoroughly or systematically.  With frequent downloads of updated LCSH data, and good automated procedures, I suspect that many more could.  I have plans to analyze some significantly larger, older, and more diverse collections of records to find out whether my suspicions are justified, and hope to report on my results in a future post.  For now, I’d like to thank the Library of Congress once again for publishing the open data that makes these sorts of catalog investigations and improvements feasible.

May 6, 2010

Making discovery smarter with open data

Filed under: architecture,discovery,online books,open access,sharing,subjects — John Mark Ockerbloom @ 9:06 am

I’ve just made a significant data enhancement to subject browsing on The Online Books Page.  It improves the concept-oriented browsing of my catalog of online books via subject maps, where users explore a subject along multiple dimensions from a starting point of interest.

Say you’d like to read some books about logic, for instance.  You’d rather not have to go find and troll all the appropriate shelf sections within math, philosophy, psychology, computing, and wherever else logic books might be found in a physical library.  And you’d rather not have to think of all the different keywords used to identify different logic-related topics in a typical online catalog. In my subject map for logic, you can see lots of suggestions of books filed both under “Logic” itself, and under related concepts.  You can go straight to a book that looks interesting, select a related subject and explore that further, or select the “i” icon next to a particular book to find more books like it.

As I’ve noted previously, the relationships and explanations that enable this sort of exploration depend on a lot of data, which has to come from somewhere.  In previous versions of my catalog, most of it came from a somewhat incomplete and not-fully-up-to-date set of authority records in our local catalog at Penn.  But the Library of Congress (LC) has recently made authoritative subject cataloging data freely available on a new website.  There, you can query it through standard interfaces, or simply download it all for analysis.

I recently downloaded their full data set (38 MB of zipped RDF), processed it, and used it to build new subject maps for The Online Books Page.   The resulting maps are substantially richer than what I had before.  My collection is fairly small by the standards of mass digitization– just shy of 40,000 items– but still, the new data, after processing, yielded over 20,000 new subject relationships, and over 600 new notes and explanations, for the subjects represented in the collection.

That’s particularly impressive when you consider that, in some ways, the RDF data is cruder than what I used before.  The RDF schemas that LC uses omit many of the details and structural cues that are in the MARC subject authority records at the Library of Congress (and at Penn).  And LC’s RDF file is also missing many subjects that I use in my catalog; in particular, at present it omits many records for geographic, personal, and organizational names.

Even so, I lost few relationships that were in my prior maps, and I gained many more.  There were two reasons for this:  First of all, LC’s file includes a lot of data records (many times more than my previous data source), and they’re more recent as well.  Second, a variety of automated inference rules– lexical, structural, geographic, and bibliographic– let me create additional links between concepts with little or no explicit authority data.  So even though LC’s RDF file includes no record for Ontario, for instance, its subject map in my collection still covers a lot of ground.

A few important things make these subject maps possible, and will help them get better in the future:

  • A large, shared, open knowledge base: The Library of Congress Subject Headings have been built up by dedicated librarians at many institutions over more than a century.  As a shared, evolving resource, the data set supports unified searching and browsing over numerous collections, including mine.  The work of keeping it up to date, and in sync with the terms that patrons use to search, can potentially be spread out among many participants.  As an open resource, the data set can be put to a variety of uses that both increase the value of our libraries and encourage the further development of the knowledge base.
  • Making the most of automation: LC’s website and standards make it easy for me to download and process their data automatically. Once I’ve loaded their data, and my own records, I then invoke a set of automated rules to infer additional subject relationships.  None of the rules is especially complex; but put together, they do a lot to enhance the subject maps. Since the underlying data is open, anyone else is also free to develop new rules or analyses (or adapt mine, once I release them).  If a community of analyzers develops, we can learn from each other as we go.  And perhaps some of the relationships we infer through automation can be incorporated directly into later revisions of LC’s own subject data.
  • Judicious use of special-purpose data: It is sometimes useful to add to or change data obtained from external sources.  For example, I maintain a small supplementary data file on major geographic areas.  A single data record saying that Ontario is a region within Canada, and is abbreviated “Ont.”, generates much of my subject map for Ontario.  Soon, I should also be able to re-incorporate local subject records, as well as arbitrary additional overlays, to fill in conceptual gaps in LC’s file.  Since local customizations can take  a lot of effort to maintain, however, it’s best to try to incorporate local data into shared knowledge bases when feasible.  That way, others can benefit from, and add on to, your own work.

Recently, there’s been a fair bit of debate about whether to treat cataloging data as an open public good, or to keep it more restricted.  The Library of Congress’ catalog data has been publicly accessible online for years, though until recently only you could only get a little a time via manual searches, or pay a large sum to get a one-time data dump.  By creating APIs, using standard semantic XML formats, and providing free, unrestricted data downloads for their subject authority data, LC has made their data much easier for others to use in a variety of ways. It’s improved my online book catalog significantly, and can also improve many other catalogs and discovery applications.  Those of us who use this data, in turn, have incentives to work to improve and sustain it.

Making the LC Subject Headings ontology open data makes it both more useful and more viable as libraries evolve.  I thank the folks at the Library of Congress for their openness with their data, and I hope to do my part in improving and contributing to their work as well.

January 15, 2010

January 10, 2008

Subjects are more than just facets (and an ALA talk plug)

Filed under: architecture,libraries,subjects — John Mark Ockerbloom @ 4:55 pm

The Library of Congress’ Working Group for the Future of Bibliographic Control announced its final report today. I haven’t yet read over the final version, but I read an earlier draft, and was particularly interested in what it had to say about subjects.

“How should we offer searching in library collections?” is a question that lots of libraries are asking. The answer heard a lot nowadays is “Facets!” Facets have been used in databases and e-commerce sites for some years now. Essentially, they define several (ideally independent) attributes for items, and then let users zero in on what they want by selecting and deselecting various attributes. For example, if you go to Amazon to buy shoes, you can select values from facets like brand, size, color, and price range. Try different selections, and you can quickly pick out the few pairs that best meet your needs out of the tens of thousands offered on the site. (Assuming you’re willing to buy shoes without trying them on.)

The Endeca catalog at NC State applies the same idea to finding books in the library. When it came out two years ago, lots of library folks got excited. And when open source tools like Solr made it easy to code up your own faceted catalog, it came as no surprise that lots of folks set out to try facet-based discovery for their collections. These new catalogs are in many ways big improvements over existing catalogs. Though, as K. G Schneider and others point out, that’s not a high bar to clear.

We too use facets in some new applications we’re building here at Penn. But they don’t entirely work well with subject headings. Kelley McGrath’s article “Facet-Based Search and Navigation: Problems and Opportunities” in the inaugural issue of the Code4lib Journal describes some of the practical problems involved.

Some have said that subject headings should change to be more facet-oriented. That’s the recommendation of the Calhoun Report commissioned by the Library of Congress that was released in 2006, which recommended dismantling the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), now the most common subject headings vocabulary. The more recent report from the Future of Bibliographic Control doesn’t go that far, but it does recommend transforming LCSH, “de-coupling subject strings” and evaluating LCSH’s ability to “support faceted browsing and discovery”. The FAST system, which breaks up subjects into uncoordinated facets, is mentioned as an interesting technology to pursue.

LCSH indeed has several problems associated with it: people have a hard time finding the appropriate subject terms for what they’re looking for; catalogers have a hard time constructing terms that follow all the LCSH rules; terms are used inconsistently across collections; terms are slow to adapt to contemporary usage; and both “traditional” and faceted library catalogs have a hard time connecting related terms together using LCSH.

Should we, then, dismantle LCSH into a simple system of facet sets? Not so fast, I say. Subjects are inherently messy things, neither fully discrete nor hierarchical, and in a large collection it’s important to be able to zero in on specific subjects through relationships. Not only is there a large installed base of materials already described with LCSH, but LCSH and ontologies like it allow books to be described with greater precision, and with richer relationships, than pure facets allow. (See Thomas Mann’s “The Peloponnesian War and the Future of Reference, Cataloging, and Scholarship in Research Libraries” for a spirited argument for the power of LCSH-style subject headings.)

What we really need are better tools that allow readers and catalogers to take full advantage of rich subject headings and relationships, and make it easier for subject headings systems to evolve more quickly to meet the needs of users. A technology I’m experimenting with now, and calling subject maps, involves networks of related subjects, techniques for enriching those networks through automation and user input, and displays that let users and librarians browse large collections by navigating through complex subject areas. Subject maps can play well with facets and user-assigned tags, to produce discovery systems that offer the best features of all of these technologies.

Too good to be true? If you want to hear more, see a demo, or ask how this would actually work, come see and/or heckle me on Saturday at ALA. I’ll be presenting at the Catalog Form and Function Interest Group, at 10:30 AM in the Versailles Room of the Sofitel Philadelphia. For more info, and for other ALA forums that may be of interest to metadata librarians, see this post on the ALA blog.

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers