Evolving Digital Libraries to Support Geographically Distributed Scientific

Evolving Digital Libraries to Support Geographically Distributed Scientific Research Rick Luce Research Library Director Library Without Walls Project Leader Los Alamos National Laboratory Symposium on Knowledge Environments for Science NSF, October 22, 2002 3/18/2018

Some Puzzle Pieces for Digital Libraries Content: • Access • Retrieval Financial Models • Funding • Content licensing Standards & Interoperable Frameworks User Behavior • User needs • Collaboration • Scholarly communication changes • Adoption curves Enabling Technologies & Infrastructure

DL Models: Delivery of Content & Services Trend • Libraries replicating one another • Requires integrated framework • Lack of interoperability • Tough work • Publisher pricing flip for e-content • Old model of libraries facing decline or aggregation

DL Models: Capture Content Capture Ingest repositories • Easy entry in network environment • Digitization of old stuff • E-collections distributed but archiving is unknown • Largely publisher controlled today Trend New players emerging Low barrier entry

eprint systems Capture Systems Eprint Systems: §xxx or ar. Xiv e-print archive Physics: 1991 Ginsparg, LANL § Re. PEc - (Economics - Surrey U - Krichel) § NCSTRL - (Computer Science - Cornell U - Lagoze) § NDLTD - (Theses - Virginia Tech - Fox) § Cog. Prints - (Cognitive Sciences - Southampton - Harnad) Harvesters § ARC & ARCHON - Computer Science Dep’t, ODU § SCIRUS – Elsevier § even at the individual level … Kepler - ODU

Digital Library Hybrid Delivery of Authentication –Content Capture Content & Services DRM Shibboleth NSFNormalization NSDL DLESE OAI protocols Standards Share usage logs between nodes Share citations & digital archives New collaboration opportunities

29 Institutional Customers in the U. S. Albany Research Cntr. l Brooks AFB l Brookhaven Nat’l Lab l Eglin AFB l Enviro Measurem’t Lab l DOE HQ Energy library l Fed. Technology Center l Griffith AFB l Oak Ridge Nat’l Lab l Savanah River Co. l Tyndall AFB l Hanscomb AFB l Wright Patterson AFB l Montana State Univ l Stanford Univ l Pacific Northwest Nat’l Lab l Edwards AFB l Univ Nevada l Idaho Nat’l Eng. & Enviro Lab l 4 New Mexico Universities l Sandia National Labs l Air Force Research Lab l Nat’l Renewable Energy Lab l Santa Fe Institute l

Who has access to 80%+ of e-content l Sandia National Labs

$Large fraction of scholarly content has significant access restrictions & cost barriers ~8 M$

Large fraction of scholarly content has significant access restrictions & cost barriers ~8 M full text articles ~60 M metadata records Copyright restrictions

Challenges FALLOUT: WITH PUBSCIENCE GONE, SIIA SEEKS OTHER CLOSURES -- With Pub. SCIENCE now history, the trade association that lobbied for its dismantling is reportedly set to focus its energies on other freely accessible government information resources. According to FEDERAL COMPUTER WEEK, Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) public policy director David Le Duc said the group was "looking into a couple of other databases and agencies, " in particular one "law-related" and one that "has to do with agriculture. " After more than a year of intense lobbying by the SIIA, a major trade association for the software and digital content industry, the federal government discontinued Pub. SCIENCE in early November …They argue, that it is unfair for taxpayer dollars to fund databases that compete with commercial products. Library Journal Academic News Wire: November 19, 2002

Repository Models • Distributed – MIT individual faculty upload and manage their own scholarly output • Semi-distributed – UC e. Scholarship assigns management responsibility to organizational units (research units, departments) that then assist faculty with uploading their papers. • Semi-centralized - Cal. Tech repository sites are set up for any university unit, but the library uploads the papers on the faculty's behalf. Its digital collections range from computer science technical reports to theses and dissertations. Institutional Repositories: Roy Tennant, 9/15/02

OAI’s role OAI’s Role So far: harvesting of descriptive metadata. . . but coming, harvesting of: § references § usage logs § certification metadata § metadata rights § citation mapping § co-citation visualization § personalization

Open. URL Information resources allow open linking by including a hook along with each metadata description. . . which presents itself as an actionable Open. URL

Create Shared User Group in My. Library

LANL Active Recommendation System Adaptation of Structure and Semantics –Using Collective Behavior of Users 1. Knowledge contexts categorized – Keywords & keyword semantic proximity – Citations and citation proximity – Semantic proximity – Traversal proximity 2. Recommendation(s) calculated 3. Traversal proximity analyzed 4. Adaptation in system Users + Profiles = learning community

LANL Active Recommendation System

Finding the Balance Point Community specific tools Encourage/support transdisciplinary research Small teams Deployable across Lab or multiple institutions New technologies, new tools Legacy data & systems Knowledge is represented by articles, books, etc. Knowledge characterized by relationships among objects, documents & resources Hub/spoke model for DL’s: balance resources and focused efforts Known path, existing infrastructure (people, buildings) institutional pride

Higher Order Thinking* … • is nonalgorithmic (path cannot be fully specified in advance) • tends to be complex (total path not visible from one vantage point) • often yields multiple solutions (each with costs/benefits rather than unique solutions) • involves nuanced judgment and interpretation • involves the application of multiple criteria (which sometimes conflict with one another) • often involves uncertainty (not everything bearing on the task is known) • involves self-regulation of the thinking process (someone else does not ‘call the plays’ at every step) • involves imposing meaning, finding structure in apparent disorder • is effortful. (considerable mental work involved in the kinds of elaborations and judgments required) *Resnick (’ 87)

Visualization • Scientific visualization – use of interactive visual representation of scientific data, typically physically based to amplify cognition • Information visualization – use of interactive visual representations of abstract, nonphysically based data to amplify cognition

Successes § Culture of measurement – long term focus on user driven requirements and corresponding satisfaction levels § Open Archives Initiative – small, quick, right players § Eprint ar. Xiv – communities of common interest, timeliness, passionate people, didn’t take a lot of $$ § Open. URL – small, quick, right players, passionate people, (standards efforts too long) § My. Library – personalized, adhoc collaboration ? Recommendation systems with shared knowledge models – uses available logs, complex, privacy concerns

Challenges § IP, copyright limitations § Post 9/11 pressure to close government access § Integrating formal and informal systems – need new mechanisms for peer review and rewards § Archiving – not glamorous but a research problem § Problem space is larger than NSF domain – – Requires cross organizational collaboration (DOE, NIH, etc. ) and international connections