E-Resource Management: the Quest for

Systems and Standards

Access 2003Vancouver, BC

October 2, 2003

Tim Jewell (University of Washington)

tjewell@u.washington.edu

http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/

Talk Outline

1. Background and E-Resource Management Functions

2. The DLF E-Resource Management Initiative

3. Impact, Challenges, and Next Steps

4. Questions and Comments

1. Background and ERM Functions

Context for E-resource Mgmt.

High Demand for “24x7” access “Google-ization” E-resource budget shares continue to grow

(mostly digital environment in 5 years?) E-resources are complex (to describe, fund,

and support) Budget issues driving shift to e-only journal

access Impact of Licensing

Common Licensing IssuesNegotiation (complexity, time, etc.)License terms supplant Copyright Law

and Fair Use to determine: Authorized users Authorized use

Need for “good faith” efforts to make users and staff aware of terms and live within them

E-resource tasks not supported by current library systems

Loading “aggregator” holdings information License term negotiation, tracking, and

communication processes Wide staff involvement in selection & support Problem tracking Escalation/ triage paths Planned, cyclical product reviews Systematic usage reporting Result: creation of many separate documents and/or

applications

Tracking Development Work :

the “Web Hub”

Adam Chandler (Cornell) and Tim Jewell Work begun for earlier DLF study Project descriptions and contacts Local documents Listserv (http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/)

E-Resource Management Systems and Initiatives California Digital Library Colorado Alliance (Gold

Rush) Columbia Griffith University (Australia) Harvard Johns Hopkins (HERMES) MIT (VERA) Michigan Minnesota Notre Dame Penn State (ERLIC)

Stanford Texas (License Tracker) Tri-College Consortium

(Haverford, Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore)

UCLA University of Georgia University of Washington

(w/III) Virginia Willamette University Yale

Sample E-resource Management Systems:

Public Displays

Yale E-resource presentation 1

Yale E-resource presentation 2

Yale License Information 1

Yale License Information 2

MIT (Vera)(based on Nicole Hennig’s 2002 Serials Librarian article)

Functions and features Generate public web pages

Databases and E-journals Subject and alpha lists

Describe availability by location Manage and generate urls Provide access to license info. Provide status and user support info.

MIT (Vera) 1

MIT (Vera) 2

MIT (Vera) 3

MIT (Vera) 4

Sample E-resource Management Systems:

Staff Forms and Functions

Johns Hopkins (HERMES)(based on Cyzyk & Robertson’s 2003 ITAL article)

Selected Requirements Full workflow to support selection &

implementation Dynamic generation of public web pages,

etc. Automatic staff renewal notification, etc. Link management Access/Use restrictions by user group Interoperability

Johns Hopkins: (HERMES)Design

Modules Authorization, Selection, Acquisition, Catalog,

Library Computing, Reports, “Scheduled notifications”

Defined “roles” Public, selector, “super-selector”, various types

of administrators

“Production” by Late Fall, 2003? SQL and Cold Fusion based, to be

available on Open Source basis

UCLA Resource Screen

UCLA Bibliographic Details Screen

UCLA Descriptors Screen

UCLA Licensing Screen

UCLA Troubleshooting Screen

2. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative

September 2002+

NISO/DLF Workshop Steering Group:

Tim Jewell (University of Washington) Ivy Anderson (Harvard) Adam Chandler (Cornell) Sharon Farb (UCLA) Angela Riggio (UCLA) Kimberly Parker (Yale) Nathan Robertson (Johns Hopkins)

became the “ERMI Steering Group”

ERMI Goals

Describe architectures needed Establish lists of elements and definitions Write and publish XML Schemas/DTD’s Promote best practices and standards for

data interchange

http://www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm

Librarian Reactor Panel (17 members)

Bob Alan (Penn State) Angela Carreno (NYU) Trisha Davis (Ohio

State) Ellen Duranceau (MIT) Christa Easton

(Stanford) Laine Farley (CDL) Diane Grover

(Washington) Nancy Hoebelheinreich

(Stanford) Norm Medeiros

(Haverford)

Linda Miller (LC) Jim Mouw (Chicago) Andrew Pace (NCSU) Carole Pilkinton (Notre

Dame) Ronda Rowe (Texas) Jim Stemper

(Minnesota) Paula Watson (Illinois) Robin Wendler

(Harvard)

Vendor Reactor Panel (12 Members)

Tina Feick (SWETS Blackwell) Ted Fons (Innovative Interfaces) David Fritsch (TDNet) Kathy Klemperer (Harrassowitz) George Machovec (Colorado Alliance) Mark Needleman (SIRSI) Oliver Pesch (EBSCO) Chris Pierard (Serials Solutions) Kathleen Quinton (OCLC) Sara Randall (Endeavor) Ed Riding (Dynix) Jenny Walker (ExLibris)

Project “Deliverables”

Problem Definition/Road MapFunctional SpecificationsWorkflow DiagramEntity Relationship DiagramData Elements and Definitions

Entities and Elements (word document) Data Dictionary (spreadsheet format)

XML Schema

Functional Requirements Outline

Introduction/Goals Guiding Principles Functional Requirements (42 main points)

General (3) Resource Discovery (7) Bibliographic Management (2) Access Management (5) Staff Requirements (25)

Selection and evaluation processes (9) Resource administration and management (11) Business functions (5)

Functional Specs:Guiding Principles Integrated, non-duplicating management and

access environment. Global updating, flexible addition of fields,

ability to hide fields and records Single point of maintenance for each data

element. Interoperation and/or dynamic sharing data

with existing OPACs, web portals, library management systems, and link resolution services.

Functional Specs (excerpt)

27. Store license rights and terms for reference, reporting, and control of services

27.1 For services including but not limited to ILL, reserves, distance education, course web sites, and course packs:

27.1.1 Identify whether a given title may be used for the service and under what conditions

27.1.2 Generate reports of all materials that may or may not be used for the service with notes about conditions

Workflow DiagramWorkflow Flowchart for

Electronic Resource Management

DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative17 September 2003

p. 1 of 4

notification ofnew product

consideracquisition

recommendto consortia?

notify consortiaof product

consideration

notify internalstaff of productconsideration

product trial?

no

yes

negotiatedtrial licenserequired?

product trialstart

initiate triallicensingprocess

yes

no

yes

yes

activate trial inpublic interface

announce trialdeactivate trial

in publicinterface

gather andconsider trial

feedback

proceed?

nono

log decision andreason not to

proceed

no yes

toAp.2

determine if trialwill be public

public trial? public trial?

yes

noyes

no

from Ep.4

product trial end

trial licenseterms

acceptable?

negotiate triallicense terms

negotiationprogress

expected?

noyes

supplyauthentication

info (IPaddresses) to

provider

recordadministrativeinfo: contact,

problemprocedures, etc.

Workflow Diagram SummaryTrials Initial Review (3 “parallel processes”)

License Technical Feasibility Business Issues

ImplementationRoutine Maintenance/Renewal

Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)

ething

print version

work eresource

acquisition

user groupavailable to

license

library

consortialparticipation

organization

is licensee

publishes

provides

vends

includes/is part of

terms

eresource/license

defines

negotiates

accessinfo

admininfo

ROOM

WINDOWA

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

Each instance of A is related to a minimum ofzero and a maximum of one instance of B

Each instance of B is related to a minimum ofone and a maximum of one instance of A

Each instance of A is related to a minimum ofone and a maximum of many instances of B

Each instance of B is related to a minimum ofzero and a maximum of many instances of A

Each room has

at least zero

and at most many

windows

Each window is in

at least one

and at most one

room

Entity-RelationshipDiagram for DLF

Electronic ResourceManagement Initiative.

N.D.M. Robertsonnate@jhu.edu

17 September 2003

is licensor

location

available at

consortium

partner library

interface

provided via

Entities Summary 20 Main Entities Examples:

Electronic Resource Acquisition Access Information Administrative Information Terms (includes 4 “groups”)

Terms of Use Restrictions Perpetual Rights Mutual Obligations, Rights

Entities and Elements

3. Impact, Challenges, and Next Steps

ImpactsDevelopment work

Johns Hopkins Other libraries beginning or refining

systems Colorado Alliance (“Gold Rush”) Innovative Interfaces ERM module ExLibris (1st phase scheduled for summer

04 release) Other vendors likely to follow

RFP’s using DLF work

Challenges: navigating the standards landscape 1

Description NISO/EDItEUR Joint Working Party

Licensing Can “legal subtleties” be encoded? Can we share license descriptions?

“Players”: publishers, vendors, libraries Political ramifications Legal issues: XML expression of digital rights

Can we do this in a standardized way? Can it be done for “local” e-collections?

Challenges: navigating the standards landscape 2

Authentication Impact of Shibboleth, etc. More “granular” terms by user status?

Usage Data Fit with COUNTER, ARL emetrics?

Administration, Access, and Support Volatility of data requirements Portability to future ERM’s

Interoperability of “stand-alone” ERM’s

Next StepsComplete deliverables (Nov. 2003)Presentation to DLF Fall Forum (Nov.)Print publication (Winter 2004)Post-publication “futures”

Open discussion/criticism/refinement Second “NISO/DLF Pre-standardization

Workshop” in spring 2004? New standards group needed?

4. Questions and Comments