Library portal

1. Library Portal
Dheeraj Singh negi

2. INTRODUCTION
 Library portal technology can be used as specialised
content management systems to extend and promote
access; build and manage electronic collections; deliver
and integrate services. The systems put control in the
library’s hands. They offer a range of network
communications, customisation and personalisation
functions.
 Portals and gateways are proliferating. The library portal
should be one main way into institutional information
resources, but it must also be capable of offering web
services (see glossary) to other portals; just as they
themselves will increasingly seamlessly integrate
content and functions from other third party systems.

3. DEFINITION
 A library portal is defined as "a combination of
software components that unify the user experience
of discovering and accessing information" in
contrast to a "single technology" to provide
"services that support discovery, access and
effective use of information.

4. THE IMPORTANCE OF LIBRARY PORTALS
 Librarians have become increasingly aware that the
multiplication of electronic resources is a problem for
end-users. Users find it difficult to find the most
appropriate database or resource to search for
information relevant to their need. Even if they locate the
right resources, since each service tends to have its
own unique interface, they may struggle to search it
effectively. A further obstacle to access is the need to
remember and enter many different passwords to
access the different databases. These problems may lie
behind a perceived lack of use of library subscribed to
electronic services.
 Librarians also need tools to manage a resource
through its whole history from acquisition to presentation
to users to evaluation for renewal or withdrawal. Tools
exist within LMS to do this for books and journals.

5.  In response to this need a number of suppliers of
LMS systems and library products have developed
sophisticated library orientated portal products. It is
this range of technology solutions that are
discussed in the report.
 It should be said that the fragmentation of
information resources and variations in internal
layout of information has always been a problem,
as anyone who has had to explain where the quarto
books are in the library will be well aware. Library
portal technology offers a potential solution to
ameliorate this long-term problem, when combined
with appropriate user training and culture change.

6. MAJOR ELEMENTS
 In addition to the basic functions of access to the library
catalogue, and a user's subscription records, significant
elements of a library portal normally include:
 "Meta searching tools, browse able interfaces, and online
reference help," which aid in the discovery process, for
example EBSCO Discovery services;
 Links to full-text articles, Open URL,
 availability of interlibrary loan (ILL) or document delivery, for
material the library does not own
 Citation management software, user preferences services,
"knowledge management tools"
 More recently, the focus has been on the discovery goal,
which has led to even more difficulties in defining a library
portal. The terms "discovery tool," "discovery services," "next-generation
discovery tool," "next-generation OPAC" are used
interchangeably.

7. STANDARDS
 There are no accepted standards for library portals. The only
standards in the literature are the more general search and
retrieval standards, including Z39.50 and ZING (Z39.50-
International: Next Generation), the Open Archives Initiative
Protocol for Metadata Harvesting, and Open URL.
 As a result of the lack of standards, and since customization is
required in a library portal, individual institutions decide what they
expect their portal to look like, and what services it will provide.
For example, Harvard University is currently conducting a library
portal project, which will begin implementation during the
summer of 2012. They have identified their own list of criteria
which naturally differs substantially from the needs of other
institutions. The various general areas that the committee has
looked at include: content, user experience, features and
capabilities, infrastructure and security, and search and
discovery. It is uncertain which areas will be selected as part of
the Phase I implementation of the portal.

8. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPACS AND LIBRARY
PORTALS
 The online public access catalogue (OPAC) is a basic
module, part of the library’s integrated library system. Earlier,
the OPAC has been limited to searching physical texts, and
sometimes digital copies but has only limited special features.
Cap lan argues that they are in process of replacement by
newer "discovery tools" allowing more customization.[Yang
and Hofmann suggest that vendors see money in building
either separate discovery tools or Next-Generation OPACs to
be purchased as an add-on feature. A problem with
vocabulary arises here. Yang and Wagner (2010, in Yang and
Hofmann, 2011) refer to discovery tools by a many names,
including "stand-alone OPAC, discovery layer, and next-generation
catalogue [sic.]"This contrasts Bair, Boston, and
Garrison, who differentiate between next-generation
catalogues and web-scale discovery services. Despite any
confusion, it is clear that the OPAC as it currently stands is
outdated, and will be replaced by more modern, user-friendly
tools.

9. The next-generation OPAC as described by Yang and Hofmann will ideally
have the following 12 features (although not all features are currently
available in any single discovery product):
 Single point of entry for all library resources
 State-of-the-art web interface
 Enriched content
 Faceted navigation
 Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every
page
 Relevancy ranking
 Spell-checking
 Recommendations/related materials
 User contribution
 RSS feeds
 Integration with social networking sites
 Persistent links

10. REFERENCES
 Morgan, E.L. "Portals in libraries: Portal implementation
issues and challenges".Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology 31
 Sadeh, T; Walker, J. (2003). "Library portals: Toward the
semantic web". New Library World 104 (
 "Library portal high-level requirements: identified through
discussion with library staff.". Harvard University. Retrieved
17 April 2012.
 Caplan, P (2012). "On discovery tools, OPACs and the motion
of library language". Library Hi Tech 30 (1): 108–115.
 Hofmann, M.A. (2011). "Next generation or current
generation?: A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries
in the USA and Canada". Library Hi Tech 29 (2): 266–300.