The document summarizes a study that evaluated 260 academic library OPAC interfaces against 12 characteristics of a next generation catalog. Key findings include:
- No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 next generation features. Only 3% had 7 or more features.
- Faceted browsing was only present in 13% of interfaces, most of which were discovery tools.
- Use of discovery tools has doubled since the initial study, with Summon and WorldCat Local being most popular. However, most libraries still provide the legacy catalog alongside the discovery tool.
- The majority of interfaces displaying the most next generation features are discovery tools rather than traditional OPACs.
Introduction to Multilingual Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)
Yang hofmann-next generationcatalogforenug
1. The Next Generation of Catalogs
for Academic Libraries
Ex Libris Northeast User Group Annual Conference
Oct 27, 2011
Sharon Yang & Melissa A. Hofmann
Rider University Libraries
2. Purpose:
• To measure the progress made in modeling
current OPACs after the next generation
catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the
United States and Canada.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
2
3. Design/Methodology/Approach
• A random sample of 260 colleges and
universities was selected (about 10% of the
population).
• The libraries’ OPAC interfaces—both ILS-
integrated and discovery tools—were
evaluated against a checklist of the 12
features of the next generation catalog (NGC).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
3
4. Design/Methodology/Approach
• There were 273 potential OPAC interfaces
• 40 institutions had no OPACs available for analysis
(“missing”)
• Data was collected from September 2009
through July 2010.
• Findings can be extrapolated to the
population at the 95% confidence level with a
confidence interval of ±3.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
4
5. 12 NGC Characteristics
1. Single point of entry for all library resources
2. State-of-the-art web interface
3. Enriched content
4. Faceted navigation
5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on
every page
6. Relevancy
7. Did you mean…?
8. Recommendations/related materials
9. User contribution
10. RSS feeds
11. Integration with social networking sites
12. Persistent links
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
5
12. 5. Simple keyword search box
with link to advanced search on every page
0
50
100
150
200
250
Simple search box w/
link to advanced
Other options Missing
• Only 26 OPAC interfaces (9%) started with a Google-like
search box and maintained it throughout.
• “Other options”: interfaces starting with a basic or advanced
search, dropping the search box on later screens, and/or
providing other choices next to the search box.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
12
13. 6. Relevancy
• No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated
these into the search results.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
13
Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy
results criteria
14. 7. Did you mean?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
14
Spell-checking and suggestion of terms.
*Other” used language to explain dropping a user into list of
headings or titles to browse, such as: “Item not found—perhaps the
following list will help” / “Keyword not found. The closest subject match
appears below”/ “No matches found; nearby titles are…” /
15. 8. Recommended/related materials.
• No OPAC interfaces were found to have this
feature.
• However, 34% use patron-friendly language with
existing functionalities, such as hyperlinked
name and subject headings in records (searches
and browses) and call number browses:
– “Browse similar items” / “Find more about this author
or topic”/ “Show similar items” / “Nearby items on
shelf” / “More like this”
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
15
Recommend items for readers based on transaction logs.
19. Summary of Findings
• No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features.
• Only 3% of the OPAC interfaces in the sample had 7 or
more features of the NGC—and these were all
discovery tools.
• WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners.
• Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing
(only 4% of OPAC interfaces included articles).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
19
20. Summary of Findings
• Only 13% of OPAC interfaces offered faceted browsing,
83% of which were discovery tools.
• ILS-integrated OPACs that offered faceted browsing
were Koha, Auto-Graphics, and Polaris.
• 16% of institutions used a discovery tool; 85% of these
used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic”
catalog.
• 14% of institutions offered a choice of catalog
interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
20
21. Latest Study
• 260 institutions in sample checked for changes
in October 2011
• Use of discovery tools has doubled
– 81 libraries out of 260, or 31%
• (includes libraries sharing consortial catalogs)
– (Was 41 out of 260, or 16%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
21
22. Latest Study
• New-to-our-sample products
– Ebsco Discovery Service (EDS)
– LS2 PAC (Library.Corporation, part of ILS)
• Changes in
– ILS
• 3 switched (2 to LS2 PAC w/NGC features)
– Discovery Tools
• 1 from WorldCat Local to EDS
• 1 from Encore to WorldCat Local
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
22
23. Summary of New Findings
• What discovery tool did institutions choose most
since our initial data collection?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
23
Summon 13 33%
WorldCat 9 23%
EDS 5 13%
Primo 5 13%
VuFind 4 10%
AquaBrowser 2 5%
Encore 2 5%
40 100%
24. Institutions in the Sample (260)
October 2011
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
4%
49%
16%
28%
3% ILS OPACs (faceted)
(11)
"Classic" Catalogs Only
(non-faceted) (127)
Missing (41)
Discovery tools +
classic catalogs (72)
Discovery tools only
(9)
25. Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
25
*1 more than # of institutions (81) because GVSU has
links to both Summon and Encore
Discovery Tool # of Instances
AquaBrowser 7 8.5%
EDS 5 6.1%
Encore 11 13.4%
Endeca 5 6.1%
Primo 10 12.2%
Summon 15 18.3%
VuFind 14 17.1%
WorldCat Local 15 18.3%
Total: 82* 100.0%
26. Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
26
*Now has true faceted navigation.
ILS-integrated faceted
OPACs # of Instances
Autographics 1 9%
Evergreen* 2 18%
Koha 4 36%
LS2 PAC (TLC) 2 18%
Polaris 2 18%
Total: 11 100%
27. Summary of New Findings
• 31% (was 16%) of academic libraries use a discovery
tool
• 90% (was 85%) of these use them in conjunction
with their legacy or “classic” catalog.
• 28% (was 14%) offer a choice of catalog interfaces
(discovery tools and classic catalog)
• If you combine discovery tools and faceted ILS
OPACs, at least 35% of academic libraries are using
a faceted interface.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
27
28. Overall Conclusions
• NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and
minor.
• The majority of catalog interfaces displaying the
most NGC features are discovery tools.
• Many proprietary vendors seem to be
abandoning their ILS-integrated OPACs in favor of
discovery tools.
• Most libraries using a discovery tool still provide
access to their “classic” catalog.
• For some discovery tools, the legacy OPAC is
necessary to perform advanced searches or to
browse indexesHofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
28
29. References
Antelman, K., Lynema, E., and Pace, A.K. (2006), “Toward a twenty-first century library catalog”, Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 128-39.
Breeding, M. (2007), “Introduction”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14.
Creative Research Systems (2010), “Sample size calculator”, available at: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010).
Funer, J. (2008), “User tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation”, International Cataloging & Bibliographic
Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, 47-51.
Haahr, M. (2010), “Random.org: random integer generation”, available at http://www.random.org/integers/ (accessed 12 October 2009).
Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), “A big wave of next generation catalog-its features and implementing into Japanese library systems”, Joho
Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480-98.
Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), “The evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach”, Electronic Library, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 376-93.
McCormack, N. (2008), “User comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?” Feliciter, Vol. 54 No.
3, pp. 129-31.
Mendez, L.H., Quiñonez-Skinner, J., and Skaggs, D. (2009), “Subjecting the catalog to tagging”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
29
30. References
Merčun, T. and Žumer, M. (2008), “New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library
catalogues”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-61.
Murray, P. (2008), “Discovery tools and the OPAC”, PowerPoint presentation at NISO forum on next generation discovery tools:
new tools, aging standards, available at: http://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 27 January 2010).
Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges (2009), Peterson’s, Lawrenceville, NJ.
Spiteri, L.F. (2007), “The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog”, Information Technology
and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-25.
Tennant, R. (2005), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig’”, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34.
Tennant, R. (2007), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig 2.0’”, available at
http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/ (accessed 3 June 2010).
Trommer, D. (1997), “Open market goes live with next-generation catalog solution”, Electronic Buyers’ News, No. 1075, p. 90.
Yang, S. Q., and Wagner, K. (2010), Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation
catalog? Library Hi Tech. Vol. 28 No.4, pp. 690-709.
Yang, S. Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), “The next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen,
and Voyager”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141-50.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
30
31. Questions?
• Thank you!
• To learn more, read our article, Published in
Library Hi Tech, 29.2 (2011).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
31