- 01. Publish data for unspecified use
- 02. Publish open Linked Data for unspecified use
- 03. Supply data for Physical Union Catalogue
- 04. Allow Physical Union Catalogue to publish data
- 05. Expose data for federation into Virtual Union Catalogue
- 06. Publish grey literature data
- 07. Contribute data to Google Scholar
- 08. Publish activity data
- 09. Supply holdings data for Collection Management
- 10. Expose holdings / availability data for Closest Copy location
- 11. Share data for Collaborative Cataloguing
- 12. Supply data for Crowd Sourced Cataloguing
- 13. Supply data to be enhanced for own use
- 14. Publish data for LIS research
- 15. Allow personal use of data for Reference Management
- 16. Publish data for lightweight application development
- 17. Allow commercial use of data in mobile application
10. Expose holdings / availability data for Closest Copy location
Expose bibliographic data including holdings and potentially availability that can be used to provide a closest copy location service.
Activity - Expose bibliographic data including holdings and potentially availability that can be used to provide a closest copy location service. There may be opportunity to include availability for print on demand and download as well as the number and status of physical copies. The service may be operated by a 3rd party or by a consortium at regional or national level.
Actors - Libraries; 3rd party or consortium services at an appropriate level
Data involved - Partial bibliographic records (or full depending on service set up) with holdings and perhaps availability
Data flow - Involves provision of a service (e.g. API, web service, Z39.50 / SRU / SRW server) to enable the closest copy service to report availability in terms of holdings and / or availability. Alternatively (outside the scope of this UC) involves supply of data (and therefore low level of reliability in terms of holdings and availability).
Does this require Open Data - Whilst not essential, if the records are supplied under an open data license, the scope for reuse both within and beyond closest copy service will be unambiguous. Look for reciprocal open data licensing before engaging with collaborative services operated by a third party.
Current Examples - We are not aware of examples based on open data, though this approach could be adopted by any shared service.
Institution - Efficiency of access to resources for users, who may be highly mobile, is a core selling point given evolving user demographics.
Library Service - Efficiency of access combined with the opportunity to signpost digital or print on demand as the recommended delivery format
Researchers - Timeliness in terms of closest copy and alternative format is a key factor in research
Students - Alternative locations and formats are particularly valuable at times when reading lists create intensive demand for a limited set of resources.
Replication - The approach adopted here for exposing data may also help with collaborative collection development (UC9) and making activity data available (UC8).
Case for not doing it - Real time locate services are problematic and may also generate non-local pressures on services.
Principles - Support of the user anytime, anywhere involves exposing the range of access options (locations and formats) available – from home institution or permissible alternative library as physical copy, print on demand or download.
Costs - there no direct cost savings, though this is a building block towards shared collection management and user services suited to the digital information environment and to highly mobile access.
Services - Improved services may result from better location options identification. Open data offers the freedom to pursue those opportunities.
Rationale for not doing it - Given reciprocal services for digital as well as print, the major inhibitor may be in localities where one HEI is more attractive in terms of collections / services / locations than its partners.
Consequences of doing it as Open Data
What will happen? - Although there is no guarantee of any specific outcome of releasing this data, it could facilitate the emergence of location based services enabling researchers, students and others to identify closest copy to their current location
Potential Risks - (1) Loss of control over institutional data; (2) A ‘closest copy’ service, may not be well aligned with the realities of access on the ground; (3) Increased visibility of collection leads to demand beyond local resources ability to supply
Potential Opportunities - (1) Development of innovative / compelling third party services based on open data; (2) Promotion of digital and print on demand as alternatives
Consequences of not doing it? - No direct or immediate consequences.
Rights and Licensing Issues
Rights and licensing issues - This use case requires the granting (whether implicit or explicit) of data access and usage rights to a third party. Whether that is classed as ‘use’ or ‘supply’ will depend upon the nature of the relationship between the organizations involved. See http:// www.jisclegal.ac.uk/Projects/TransferandUseofBibliographicRecords.aspx.
Data exchange formatting - Z39.50, SRU, SRW or locally developed API
Lifecycle implications - Potentially significant, as local infrastructure needs to handle the overhead of every query passed along by the union catalogue.
Hosting requirements - Potentially significant, as local infrastructure needs to handle the overhead of every query passed along by the union catalogue.
Existing systems impact - (1) Continued support and maintenance of the local target, which must be persistently available; (2) possible development work to align with new requirements from the locate service; (3) possible challenges relating to the catalogue entries for more ambitious implementations covering digital copies.
Skills demands - Staff concerned with maintaining the external locate service are likely to possess all the necessary skills to maintain Z39.50-style targets, where these are well defined and provided by their existing system provider. Specific use cases may require local (or vendor) development work, with cost or skill implications.
Setup - The necessary ‘target’ capability may already be included within the LMS or equivalent local systems. Configuration to meet specific requirements may require modest effort that will normally be within the abilities of systems staff.
Ongoing - The infrastructural costs associated with sustaining this capability may be relatively low, but will inevitably be directly affected by the efficiency and popularity of the union catalogue itself.
Cost of doing nothing - No additional costs will be directly accrued through inaction. However, supplying data on a case-by-case basis without adopting an open license or permissive contract may result in an ongoing requirement to receive, assess, and respond to requests for data from third parties.