The Bath Profile: making Z39.50 interoperable

1
The Bath Profile making Z39.50 interoperable
Paul Miller UKOLN P.Miller_at_ukoln.ac.uk
Carrol Lunau National Library of
Canada Carrol.Lunau_at_nlc-bnc.ca
UKOLN is funded by the Library and Information
Commission, the Joint Information Systems
Committee (JISC) of the Higher Education Funding
Councils, as well as by project funding from the
JISC and the European Union. UKOLN also
receives support from the Universities of Bath
and Hull where staff are based.
2
Whats wrong with Z39.50?

• Profiles for each discipline
• Defeats interoperability?
• Vendor interpretation of the standard
• Bib1 bloat
• Largely invisible to the user
• Seen as complicated, expensive and oldfashioned
• Surely no match for XML/RDF/ whatever.

See http//www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue21/z3950/
3
The Bath Profile

• Vendors and systems implement areas of the Z39.50
  standard differently
• Regional, National, and disciplinary Profiles
  have appeared over previous years, many of which
  have basic functions in common
• Users wish to search across national/regional
  boundaries, and between vendors.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
4
Learning from the past

• The Bath Profile is heavily influenced by
• ATS1
• CENL
• DanZIG
• MODELS
• ONE
• Z Texas
• vCUC.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
5
Learning from the past
See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
6
Doing the work

• ZIPPIZL mailing list, hosted by National
  Library of Canada
• Meeting facetoface
• JISC supported a facetoface meeting in Bath
  (UK) over the summer of 1999
• A draft was widely circulated for comment
• Profile presented at DC7 in Frankfurt
• Open Concertation day in the UK
• Discussion and feedback worldwide

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/
activities/z3950/int_profile/bath/
7
Doing the work

• Makx Dekkers
• PricewaterhouseCoopers/ EC
• Janifer Gatenby
• GEAC
• Juha Hakala
• National Library of Finland
• Poul Henrik Joergensen
• Danish Library Centre
• Carrol Lunau
• National Library of Canada

• Paul Miller
• UKOLN
• Slavko Manojlovich
• SIRSI/ Memorial University of Newfoundland
• Bill Moen
• University of North Texas
• Judith Pearce
• National Library of Australia
• Joe Zeeman
• CGI.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/
activities/z3950/int_profile/bath/
8
What we proposed

• Minimisation of defaults
• Where possible, every attribute is defined in the
  Profile (Use, Relation, Position, Structure,
  Truncation, Completeness)
• Three Functional Areas
• Basic Bibliographic Search Retrieval
• Bibliographic Holdings Search Retrieval
• CrossDomain Search Retrieval
• Three Levels of Conformance in each Area.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
9
What we proposed

• Basic Bibliographic Search Retrieval
• Level 0
• Author, Title, Subject, Any
• Level 1
• Author, Title, Subject, Standard Identifier, Date
  of Publication, Any
• (including more exact ATS searches)
• Scan.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
10
What we proposed

• Bibliographic Holdings Search Retrieval
• Level 0
• Holdings info embedded in the record, etc.
• Level 1
• Access to Locations, Summary Information and
  Holdings Count.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
11
What we proposed

• CrossDomain Search Retrieval
• Level 0
• Creator, Title, Subject, Any
• Level 1
• Creator, Title, Subject, Standard Identifier,
  Date of Publication, Any
• (including more exact ATS searches).

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
12
What we proposed

• SUTRS and one of UNIMARC or MARC21 for
  Bibliographic Search results
• All three at Level 1 (for Targets)
• SUTRS and Dublin Core (in XML) for CrossDomain
  results
• Other record syntaxes also permitted, but
  conformant tools must support at least these.

See http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/interopfocus/activiti
es/z3950/int_profile/bath/
13
Finishing it off

• Consolidate comments, and revise where necessary
• Direct approaches to international vendors
• User testing in Canada and Texas
• ZIG meeting this week
• ISO Internationally Recognised Profile status
  during 2000
• Addition of Functional Areas and Levels of
  Conformance as required.

See http//lcweb.loc.gov/z3950/agency/texas/texas
.html
14
And now for a quick case study

• The United Kingdoms DNER

15
The D N what?

• Distributed National Electronic Resource
• Policy aspiration of the Joint Information
  Systems Committee
• Intended to provide greater access to JISCs
  Current Content Collection
• RDN
• AHDS
• MIMAS/ EDINA/ Data Archive
• EDUSERVE
• COPAC
• eLib projectsetc.

See http//www.jisc.ac.uk/pub99/dner_desc.html
16
Building the DNER

• Construction of various Portals to facilitate
  usercentric access
• JISC Portal ?
• Data Centre Portals (EDINA, MIMAS)
• Subject Portals (the RDN, etc.)
• Data Type Portals (images, movies, sound)
• Institutional Portals (a Hybrid Library?)
• Personal Portals (Pauls web!)
• Also providing other access to discrete resources.

See http//www.jisc.ac.uk/pub99/dner_desc.html
17
Building the DNER

• But how can we link these services together?

At the moment, Z39.50 is seen as the only
feasible mechanism across the range of services
JISC wish to offer.
See http//www.jisc.ac.uk/pub99/dner_desc.html
18
Building the DNER

• Remaining challenges
• Authentication hell
• Move from endless authentication to single
  authentication
• Alignment of different data types
• Ordnance Survey maps at Edinburgh
• Satellite imagery in Manchester
• Electronic journal articles in many formats, etc.
• Census data at the Data Archive
• Survey data in Manchester
• Chemical structures in Manchester
• Collection Level Description.