WebFeat
Zsuzsa Koltay, presenter.  Background information:

Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:19:20 -0400
To: Cornell University Library <CU-LIB@cornell.edu> (cu-lib)
From: Zsuzsa Koltay <zk10@cornell.edu>
Subject: Find Articles update

Dear Colleagues,

You might recall that during the spring semester a task force of the Resource Discovery Systems Working Group wrote a report recommending that CUL replace EnCompass as its solution for searching multiple databases at a time.  LMT endorsed this recommendation and called for a test system to be created and analyzed to evaluate the viability of WebFeat as a solution to this need.  A successful test will mean negotiating a deal with WebFeat and implementing the system in a phased manner.  Pending a go decision, Phase One implementation will start for the fall semester with approximately 100 databases and no major changes to the user interface of Find Articles.  During Fall semester we would evaluate the experience with the system, add more databases to the mix, conduct usability tests to redesign the interface, work with PSEC to work out a prominent way to feature the WebFeat search function in our web presence, and recommend a PR campaign.  We will also evaluate WebFeat's potential for the Find Database and Find Images functionality.

The following group was assembled for the implementation team:
Marty Kurth and Zsuzsa Koltay, co-chairs
Adam Chandler
Jesse Koennecke
Melissa Kuo
Maureen Morris
Gail Steinhart
Kizer Walker

LMT sponsor: Karen Calhoun
advisors: Anne Kenney, Janet McCue, Tom Hickerson (Oya Rieger)

I will update you periodically about our progress.  We expect to have the system thoroughly tested during July and submit a go/no go recommendation to LMT on July 21.  We will be contacting various functional groups with requests to help us with the testing.

Please contact Marty or me with any questions and comments.

Zsuzsa 

Find Databases Task Force
Presenter, Maureen Morris.  Background information:

From: "Maureen Morris" <mm342@cornell.edu>
To: "CUL-PUBLICSERVICES-L" <CUL-PUBLICSERVICES-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Changes to Find Databases Platform
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:20:07 -0400

Public Services Staff,

The Find Databases Implementation Team, collaborating with ReDS, PSEC, and Reference and Outreach, has implemented a new Find Databases service replacing our legacy ENCompass platform with Innovative Interfaces' ERM platform. It provides a faster, more robust service for patrons to use in finding databases and enables the Library to more efficiently record license metadata for databases. The team has deliberately minimized changes to the interface, so that patrons and public services staff are unlikely to notice any significant change to service and will not need to relearn how to use the system. However, there is a new URL so if there are links to Find
Databases on web pages you maintain, those should be changed to: http://resolver.library.cornell.edu/net/fd.  There will be a redirect in place but it is always safer to change the links.

The migration to the new Find Databases platform has been used as an opportunity to survey the content of Find Databases. This effort has resulted in a much leaner Find Databases collection that includes high-use, core databases. However the list of databases has not been finalized yet and there is currently another task force examining the contents as well as developing a new definition of what should be included in Find Databases.
As always, all other e-resources that have been selected by CUL's subject specialists can be found in the library catalog
(http://catalog.library.cornell.edu).

The move to the new Find Databases will take place on June 28 and 29 and a message will appear on the Library Gateway alerting library patrons to the change. Please take time over the next week to use the test system yourself at http://resolver.library.cornell.edu/net/fd and send your feedback to me (mm342@cornell.edu).  There are a few known issues we are still working on but feel free to send all comments and concerns.

Also note that there will be a Reference and Outreach open forum on July 12 where this will be a topic of discussion after staff have had a chance to work with it for a few weeks.  Details about the forum are forthcoming.

Thanks,

Maureen Morris,
for the Find Databases Implementation Team (David Banush, Adam Chandler
(chair), Matt Connolly, Liisa Mobley, Maureen Morris, Nate Rupp, Zoe Stewart
Marshall)

Find Databases Guidelines Group
Virginia Cole, presenter.  Background information here.

Reference Statistics Sampling
Gaby Castro Gessner - update on the online system
Virginia Cole - update on online documentation & training

Shadow Records
Fred Muratori, presenter
Suggestions for more "Shadow Records." Background information:

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:07:42 -0400
To: Cornell University Library <CU-LIB@cornell.edu> (cu-lib)
From: Ida Martinez <im58@cornell.edu>
Subject: Searching for "Problem" Serial Titles in the OPAC

CUL Community:

Many of us know that it is often challenging for patrons to find the "right" record in the OPAC for commonly requested serials such as the New York Times, Nature, or Time. The results from a title search are simply too large and the Voyager sorting protocols not readily apparent.
    
In an effort to circumvent this problem, LTS has partnered with public service staff to develop "Public Services shadow records" that simplify searching for (and finding!) the "right" records for these titles.  These shadow records force the "correct" records to the top of the search results list.

For example, go to the catalog and do a title search (not a journal title search) for the New York Times. The top three hits should be in all caps and should represent (in order) our electronic holdings, print holdings, and microform holdings for the NYT newspaper.

Similar records will follow for a select list of titles, including Time, Science (magazine), Newsweek, Architecture, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, and others.

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding work of Jim LeBlanc in LTS and Sarah Ross in IOS for the development of these records.  We believe these records will be a great help to our patrons.

We welcome feedback about these records and suggestions of other serial titles to consider for such shadow records.  Please send your comments and suggestions to me, Ida Martinez, at im58@cornell.edu.

Thank you.

Ida Martinez
PSEC Reference & Outreach Committee, Co-chair

Blackboard/CUL Integration

Links to the Library Gateway, Ask a Librarian, and RefWorks will be integrated into the Blackboard course management system this fall.  Library integration team members will report on these developments and possibly show the new features in the Blackboard test system.

With more than 45 attendees from Technical Services, Public Services, Archives, and Reference, it was standing room only!

Announcements/Brief Items:

1. Blackboard/CUL Integration

Marty Kurth announced that courses on Blackboard will have buttons for the Library Gateway and for Ask a Librarian. A link to RefWorks is also in the works. These changes will hopefully take place in August.

2. Shadow Records Suggestions

Fred Muratori demonstrated title searches that will bring short serial titles to the top of a search, such as Nature, Time, Science, etc. to make them easier to find. If you have other suggestions about titles that should be included, please email them to Ida Martinez.

Main Agenda Items

1.      Reference Statistics Sampling - Update / Progress Report

Gaby Castro Gessner announced that the online system won’t be in production until August 14, so we will need to take statistics on paper for the first sampling week (August 7).  The system is available now for practice at http://libdev.library.cornell.edu/~rsrs, password is demo.

2. WebFeat
Zsuzsa Koltay gave some background on federated searching (searching multiple databases simultaneously) at Cornell and the reasons for migrating off the Endeavor system. A task force of the Resource Discovery Systems Working Group was formed to find a replacement, and after researching and interviewing vendors, WebFeat was recommended. The committee was particularly impressed with the University of Pittsburgh implementation of WebFeat, which includes all their databases, including their image databases and local digital collections. WebFeat also offers integration with course web pages. The WebFeat Implementation Team is working with WebFeat on producing a test system. Testing will commence in July, and pending a “go” decision, the system will be implemented in phases. Phase One implementation for the fall semester will include approximately 100 databases and will have no major changes to the user interface of Find Articles. In the background the system is switching from Endeavor to WebFeat with some interface implications for some display functions. During Fall semester we will evaluate the experience with the system, add more databases, conduct usability tests to redesign the interface, work with PSEC to work out a prominent way to feature the WebFeat search function in our web presence, and recommend a PR campaign.  We will also evaluate WebFeat's potential for the Find Database and Find Images functionality.

Pricing is based on the number of databases included with an incentive for a three-year commitment, so it is to our advantage to decide on the ultimate number of databases up front, so we have been watching the Find Database process with great interest.

Zsuzsa asked the group about any possible red flags or roadblocks they can caution us on from their perspective.  She also asked about the group’s sense of database inclusion.

Questions and comments from the group included   -

ü      Encouragement to include online reference sources such as online encyclopedias and handbooks? Selectors are faced with deciding between print and online and possibly migrating to electronic only.

ü      What if we have web sites that we want to be included but they don’t have search capabilities yet?

ü      Are there financial problems with selecting all our databases for WebFeat?

ü      Are there simultaneous user problems since multiple databases are selected more often than in the past?  

ü      Will there be a capped limit on results?

2. Find Databases Task Force
Maureen Morris reported from the Find Databases Implementation Team, which is the group that deals with the design interface. She demonstrated Find Databases and showed how it displayed and asked for feedback. Users questioned the use of the terms “public domain” and “licensed.” Suggestions for alternate terms included “open” or “open access” and “Cornell subscription” or “Cornell only.”

Comments included the design is nice, better space and more readable than before. The acronyms for some databases aren’t very informative, and it was suggested that we provide brief descriptions or mouseovers with full descriptions. A more… could link to a full description.

3. Find Databases Guidelines Group (Virginia Cole)
This group was tasked by PSEC and Reference & Outreach to tweak the current FD.  FDGG presented its proposed guidelines and its proposed list of databases included and excluded in the new FD. 

Questions and comments raised:

• Should single-title reference works be excluded?
• Reference works perhaps need their own category, back to eReference perhaps; presently the reference categories in FD are bloated.
• The meaning of the term databases itself is in flux and has changed over time.
• The Gateway and FD need to reflect the social structure of knowledge in the academy (see: http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/skill8a.htm) and the library’s mission of educating.
• Users do what they want to do.
• There is a tension between one quick easy point of entry to everything and the context of scholarly information and the need to teach users how to evaluate information.
• Red Light-Green Light is a good example of the best of both worlds--easy to get results, then results explained and given context.
• There is a need to reduce the number of titles in FD, but perhaps the numbers aren’t the problem.  Giving users more ways to slice and dice the numbers is what is needed.
• Maybe we need a task-oriented approach rather than categories.
• Selection of science databases in the proposed new FD was fairly decent, but statistical and agriculture categories need work. 
• Only subscribed databases should be in FD; all free databases should be excluded from FD. 
• Need to be careful about blanket exclusion of free and open access databases.
• Individual e-book titles are being excluded but not collections of e-books.
• In the present no/yes lists of FD, sciences are decently handled, but statistics and agriculture need serious work.
• The 486 databases presently in FD are there because they showed a certain amount of monthly usage.  Quite interesting that some crucial databases seem to not be accessed through FD.
• Could the FDGG open up its meetings to others?

Several members of the forum accepted the call from FDGG for volunteers.  If you are interested in helping in any way, please contact Kizer Walker.  A revised version of guidelines, recommendations, and the new FD list should be available CUL-wide for final review in early August.

Minutes by Jill Powell, Thad Dickinson and Virginia Cole

7-13-06