Serendipity in Library Retrieval: Reinforcing Discovery through Visualization of Bibliographic Relationships
Keywords:Bibliographic Relationships, Creative Browsing, Information Visualization, Information Search, Relationship-based Navigation, Serendipity
AbstractThis work starts with a background study of serendipity, its meaning in the context of information discovery, its interrelation with bibliographic relationships, and the technical possibilities for practical implementation of a relationships based visual navigation in a library discovery interface to achieve serendipitous resource discovery. The methodology for developing the prototype consists of two components – theoretical base and practical steps. The theoretical framework includes an indepth study of the concept of bibliographic relationships as proposed by experts, as reflected in bibliographic data models and as included in bibliographic formats and metadata schemas. The practical sides deal with the application of the theoretical framework in designing a prototype that, in addition to other typical retrieval features, supports visual navigational facility driven by bibliographic relationships. The components, tools and standards of the entire software architecture are all open source and open standards.
Agarwal, N. K. (2015). Towards a definition of serendipity in information behaviour. Information Research, 20(3), p. 675. Accessed on 13 April 2021 http://InformationR.net/ ir/20-3/paper675.html.
Agarwal, N. K., Huang, Y. H. and Erdelez, S. (2021). Aha! Librarians’ predisposition for information encountering and serendipity in the workplace. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes Du Congrès Annuel de l’ACSI. https://doi.org/10.29173/cais1203.
Allison-Cassin, S. (2012). The possibility of the infinite library: Exploring the conceptual boundaries of works and texts of bibliographic description. Journal of Library Metadata, 12(2-3): 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386 389.2012.700606.
Batley, S (1988). Visual information retrieval: Browsing strategies in pictorial databases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Accessed on 10 April 2021. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do? uin=uk. bl.ethos.327967.
Berkun, S. (2010). The Myths of Innovation. Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly.
Bianchini, C. and Guerrini, M. (2009). From bibliographic models to cataloging rules: Remarks on FRBR, ICP, ISBD, and RDA and the relationships between them. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 47(2): 105-124. https://doi. org/10.1080/01639370802561674.
Bird-Meyer, M., Erdelez, S. and Bossaller, J. (2019). The role of serendipity in the story ideation process of print media journalists. Journal of Documentation, 75(5): 995-1012. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2018-0186.
Boyd, B. (2000). Serendipity of the new. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 1: 36-37. https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.1.1.174.
Brault, N. (1972). The Great Debate on Panizzi’s Rules in 1847-1948: The issues discussed. Los Angeles: The School of Library Service and the University Library, University of California, Los Angeles.
Breeding, M. (2015). Serendipity: The virtual-library experience. Computers in Libraries, 35(09): 9-11.
Brunt, R. (1998). Old rules for a new game: Cutter revisited. Library Review, 47(2): 82-90. https://doi. org/10.1108/00242539810369945.
Buchanan, S. A., Bossaller, S. and Erdelez, S. (2018). Information encountering by an art historian: A methodological case study. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1): 762-764. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501106.
Carot, A. S., Orduña-Malea, E., Serrano-Cobos, J. and Romero, N. L. (2010). Proposal of a Goal-Oriented Shared Catalog Model. 2010 IEEE Fourth International Conference on Semantic Computing; p. 502-507. https:// doi.org/10.1109/ICSC.2010.43.
Carr, P. L. (2015). Serendipity in the stacks: Libraries, information architecture, and the problems of accidental discovery. College and Research Libraries, 76(6): 831-842. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.6.831.
Cook, M. (2018). Virtual serendipity: Preserving embodied browsing activity in the 21st century research library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1): 145-149. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.003.
Cooper, J. W. and Prager, J. M. (2000). Anti-serendipity: finding useless documents and similar documents. In: Spragu, R. H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Accessed on 10 May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2000.926691, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1. 137.1412&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Cutter, C. A. (1904). Rules for a Dictionary Catalog. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Erdelez, S. (1996), Information encountering: a conceptual framework for accidental information discovery. Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking, and Use in Different Contexts, Los Angeles, CA; p. 412-421.
Erdelez, S. (2018). Accidental information discovery: Cultivating serendipity in the digital age. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69: 753-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23995.
Erdelez, S. and Makri, S. (2020). Information encountering re-encountered: A conceptual re- examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition. Journal of Documentation, 76(3): 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JD-08-2019-0151.
Ezell, J. and Rosenbloom, L. (2021). Improv(is)ing research: Instructional design for serendipity in archival exploration. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(1): 102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102257.
Fang, S. (2020). Visualization of information retrieval in smart library based on virtual reality technology. Complexity, 2020, 6646673. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6646673.
Foster, A. E. and Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3): 321-340. https://doi. org/10.1108/00220410310472518.
Foster, A. E. and Ellis, D. (2014). Serendipity and its study. Journal of Documentation, 70(6): 1015-1038. https://doi. org/10.1108/JD-03-2014-0053.
Green, R. (2001). Relationships in the organization of knowledge: An overview. In: Bean, C. A, & Green, R. (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge; p. 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-015-9696-1_1.
Gup, T. (1997). The end of serendipity. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(21): A52.
Gup, T. (1998). Technology and the end of serendipity. The Education Digest, 6: 48-50.
Hardesty, J. L. (2014). Exhibiting library collections online: Omeka in context. New Library World, 115(3/4): 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2014-0013.
Hill, G., Hutchings, G., James, R., Loades, S., Halé, J. and Hatzopulous, M. (1997). Exploiting serendipity amongst users to provide support for hypertext navigation. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Hypertext, 212-213. https://doi.org/10.1145/267437.267462.
Hosein, Y. and Bowen-Chang, P. (2014). Map cataloguing training at the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine. Library Review, 63(4/5): 340-351. https://doi.org/10.1108/ lr-11-2013-0134.
Huwe, T. K. (1999). New search tools for multidisciplinary digital libraries. Online, 23(2): 67-73. Accessed on 10 May 2021. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=3474735.
IFLA. (1998). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: Final report, UBCIM publications; N.S., Vol. 19. Accessed on 31 December 2020. https://www.ifla.org/ publications/functional-requirements-for-bibliographicrecords.
IFLA-LRM (2017). IFLA Library Reference Model: A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information. Accessed on 31 December 2020. https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/ cataloguing/frbr-lrm/ifla-lrm-august-2017_rev201712.pdf.
Jones, J. W. and Rosenfeld, L. B. (1992). From security to serendipity, or, how we may have to learn to stop worrying and love chaos. Proceedings of ASIS Mid Year Meeting, 75-82.
Kefalidou, G. and Sharples, S. (2016). Encouraging serendipity in research: Designing technologies to support connection-making. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 89: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhcs.2016.01.003.
Lehnus, D. J. (1972). A Comparison of Panizzi’s 91 Rules and the AACR of 1967. University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Occasional Papers, 105: 1-39. 9/11/2020.
Makri, S., Bhuiya, J., Carthy, J. and Owusu-Bonsu, J. (2015). Observing serendipity in digital information environments. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pra2.2015.145052010019.
Makri, S., Chen, Y.-C., McKay, D., Buchanan, G. and Ocepek, M. (2019). Discovering the unfindable: The tension between findability and discoverability in a bookshop designed for serendipity. Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2019; p. 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-29384-0_1.
Makri, S. and Race, T. M. (2016). Serendipity in current digital information environments. In: Tammera M. Race & S. Makri (Eds.), Accidental Information Discovery, Chandos Publishing; p. 53-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-1-84334-750-7.00004-2.
Maron, D. and Feinberg, M. (2018). What does it mean to adopt a metadata standard? A case study of Omeka and the Dublin Core. Journal of Documentation, 74(4): 674-691. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0095.
Martin, K. and Quan-Haase, A. (2017). A process of controlled serendipity: An exploratory study of historians’ and digital historians’ experiences of serendipity in digital environments. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1): 289-297. https://doi. org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401032.
McBirnie, A. (2008). Seeking serendipity: The paradox of control. Aslib Proceedings, 60(6): 600- 618. https://doi. org/10.1108/00012530810924294.
Merčun, T., Žumer, M., Aalberg, T. and Bawden, D. (2016). Presenting bibliographic families: Designing an FRBRbased prototype using information visualization. Journal of Documentation, 72(3): 490-526. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JD-01-2015-0001.
Morse, P. M. (1970).On browsing: the use of search theory in the search for information. Bulletin of the Operations Research Society of America, Supplement, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0702920, https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED042471 (accessed on 20 May 2021)
Morville, P. and Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing Large- Scale Web Sites. 3rd ed., California: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
Mukhopadhyay, P. (2005). Use of FRBR as model of bibliographic description in online environment. Vidyasagar University Journal of Library and Information Science, 51-69.
Mukhopadhyay, P. (2020). Bibliographic relationships: From principles to practice. Indian Journal of Information, Library and Society, 33(3-4): 1-20.
Noruzi, A. (2012). FRBR and Tillett’s Taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Knowledge Organization, 39(6): 409-416. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2012-6-409.
Park, T. K. and Morrison. A. M. (2017). The nature and characteristics of bibliographic relationships in RDA cataloging records in OCLC at the beginning of RDA implementation. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 55(6): 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1319451.
Race, T. M. and Makri, S. (2016). Introducing Serendipity. In: Tammera M. Race & S. Makri (Eds.), Accidental Information Discovery, Chandos Publishing; p. 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-750-7.00004-2.
Race, T. M. (2012). Resource Discovery Tools: Supporting Serendipity. In: M. P. Popp & D. Dallis (Eds.), Planning and Implementing Resource Discovery Tools in Academic Libraries, IGI Global; p. 139-152. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1821-3.
Rahman, A.and Wilson, M. L. (2015). Exploring Opportunities to Facilitate Serendipity in Search. Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; p. 939-942. https://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767783.
Remer, T. G. (1965). Serendipity and the three princes, from the Peregrinaggio of 557. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Reviglio, U. (2019). Serendipity as an emerging design principle of the infosphere: Challenges and opportunities. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(2): 151-166. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9496-y.
Rice, J. (1988). Serendipity and holism: the beauty of OPACs. Library Journal, 113(3), 138-141. Accessed on 20 May 2021. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ366441.
Rice, R. E., Mccreadie, M. and Chang, S. (2001). Accessing and Browsing Information and Communication. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1066.001.0001.
Riva, P. (2013). Mapping MARC 21 linking entry fields to FRBR and Tillett’s taxonomy of bibliographic relationships. Library Resources and Technical Services, 48(2): 130-143. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.48n2.130-143.
Riva, P., Le Bøeuf, P. and Žumer, M. (2017). IFLA Library Reference Model: A Conceptual Model for Bibliographic Information. IFLA.
Rosenman, M. F. (1988). Serendipity and scientific discovery. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 22(2): 132-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1988.tb00674.x.
Savolainen, R. (2006). Time as a context of information seeking. Library and Information Science Research, 28(1): 110-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.11.001.
Savolainen, R. (2016). Elaborating the conceptual space of information seeking phenomena. Information Research, 21(3), p. 720. Accessed on 13 April 2021. http:// InformationR.net/ir/21-3/ paper720.html.
Smiraglia, R. P. (1992). Authority control and the extent of derivative bibliographic relationships. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate Library School, University of Chicago.
Smiraglia, R. P. (1994). Derivative bibliographic relationships: Linkages in the bibliographic universe. In: Andersen, D.L., Galvin, T. J., and Giguere, M. D. (Eds.), Navigating the Networks: Proceedings of the ASIS Mid-Year Meeting; p. 115-135.
Smiraglia, R. P. and Leazer, G. H. (1999). Derivative bibliographic relationships: The work relationship in a global bibliographic database. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(6): 493-504. https:// doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:6<493::AIDASI4> 3.0.CO;2-U.
Svenonius, E. (1989). The Conceptual Foundations of Descriptive Cataloging. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
Svenonius, E. (2018). Bibliographic entities and their uses. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 56(8): 711-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2018.1524284.
Tait, J. A. (1967). The Anglo‐American Cataloging Rules. Library Review, 21(2): 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/ eb012470.
Tallerås, K. (2018). Metadata Structures of the Bibliographic Universe: Transformation, Interoperability, Conceptualizations, and Quality.
Tillett, B. B. (1987). Bibliographic relationships: Toward a conceptual structure of bibliographic information used in cataloging. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Tillett, B. B. (1991). A summary of the treatment of bibliographic relationships in cataloging rules. Library Resources and Technical Services, 35(4): 393.
Tillett, B. B. (2001). Bibliographic Relationships. In: C. A. Bean & R. Green (Eds.), Relationships in the Organization of Knowledge, Springer Netherlands; p. 19-35. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-94-015-9696-1_2.
Tillett, B. B. (2005). FRBR and cataloging for the future. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 39(3-4): 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v39n03_12.
Vellucci, S. L. (1997). Bibliographic Relationships in Music Catalogs. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Watson, E. (2008). Going Fishing: Serendipity in Library and Information Science [Master’s paper]. University of North Carolina.
Zhang, Y. (2003). Bibliographic relationships among Chinese publications: A bibliographic study of the Chinese collections of the East Asia Resources at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/masters_papers/ f7623h37.
How to Cite
All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.