Electronic Resource ManagementAn Overview of Standards

PresentersMary Bailey, Serials & Electronic Resource Librarian, Kansas State UniversityDalene Hawthorne, Head of Systems & Technical Services, ESUAnne Liebst, Assistant Director for Technical Services, Washburn University

Agenda Why are standards important?Brief history of electronic resourcesElectronic Resources Management InitiativeManaging License InformationManaging journal article versionsOpen URLCOUNTERSUSHI

Electronic Resource Management: An Overview of StandardsAnne Liebst, Washburn UniversityTri-Conference 2007April 10, 2007

Standards?Well, its a lot like

click here

What I really mean isstandards are all over the place

MARCMetadataXMLZ39.50RFIDAACR2OpenAccess(Just to name a few!)

And now we are being told to throw out the standards!Roy Tennant MARC must die Library Journal; 10/15/2002, Vol. 127 Issue 17, p26

Roy Tennant Will RDA be DOA? Library Journal; 03/15/2007, Vol. 132 Issue 4, p

But wait!Wiley just bought Blackwells

CSA just bought ProQuest

Springer is about to buy Taylor & Francis

and the list goes on and on

So standards become important for electronic materials:

To standardize terminology and definitions, methods of data collection and methods of analyzing the data with the aim of comparing results and of aggregating results on a regional, national, or even international level.

So standards become important for electronic materials:

For the electronic collection; the online catalog; the librarys web site; electronic document delivery; online reference services; user training on electronic services; and internet access.

The main problem is how to count usage. And who sets the standards?

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

Non-profit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).Identifies, develops, maintains, and publishes technical standards to manage information in our changing and ever-more digital environment. NISO standards apply both traditional and new technologies to the full range of information-related needs, including retrieval, re-purposing, storage, metadata, and preservation. Founded in 1939, incorporated in 1989.Represents U.S. in the International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Pre-Standards ResearchHelps NISO map the business and technology landscape where its standards must operate. A pre-standards workshop focused on Digital Rights Expression. An exploratory workgroup on RFID examined the need for standards to support use in the library and book industries.

Active Standards DevelopmentNISO charters groups to create standards and best practices.The Metasearch Initiative produced a guideline, two draft standards and a best practices document.The Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) will help librarians track usage of online content.A License Expression Working Group will develop a single standard for the exchange of license information between publishers and libraries.The Web Services and Practices Working Group will produce best practices and interoperability mechanisms documents.

Draft Standards in Trial UseEnable implementers to test the product.Collection Description Specification and the Information Retrieval Service Description Specification work together to make it easier to find and use resources from the hidden Web.

StandardsSeveral Z39 Standards went to ballot; others earned approval from ANSI.Data DictionaryTechnical Metadata for Digital Still ImagesThe OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive ServicesBibliographic ReferencesScientific and Technical ReportsPreparation, Presentation and PreservationGuidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled VocabulariesInformation Services and Use: Metrics and Standards for Libraries and Information

ImplementationMaintenance Agencies, like ALA, assist in the dissemination of standards and provide information on changes. All standards are reviewed on a regular basis at least five years after approval and revised as the information environment changes.

ExampleANSI/NISO Z39.50 2003Information Retrieval : Application Service Definition & Protocol SpecificationAbstract: This standard defines a client/server based service and protocol for Information Retrieval. It specifies procedures and formats for a client to search a database provided by a server, retrieve database records, and perform related information retrieval functions. The protocol addresses communication between information retrieval applications at the the client and server; it does not address interaction between the client and the end-user.Maintenance Agency: Library of Congress

In Development NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)

United Kingdoms Counting Online Usage of Electronic Resources (COUNTER)

Brief History of E-ResourcesDalene HawthorneHead of Systems and Technical ServicesEmporia State UniversityKLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007Topeka, Kansas

Brief History Lesson

It all started with MARC in the mid-1960sLed by the Library of CongressPilot project ended in 1967General distribution began in 1969Laid the foundation for resource sharing

Databases in the 1960sFirst bibliographic databases were created at about the same timeScientific and government informationDriven by concerns about scholarly communicationNational Science Foundations Office of Science Information Service legally charged facilitating accessFirst Dialog database created in 1966

The 70s and 80sWorldCat was introduced in 1971 by OCLCFirst online catalogs were made available by the mid 1970s, but many libraries brought theirs up in the 1980sCD-ROM technology changed databases in the mid 1980sUser friendly interfacesJuke boxes and networksFull-textNo per-search chargesLicense agreementsOnline databases were still heavily in use, but searches were usually mediated by a librarian

The WebThe Web changed everythingUser-friendly interfacesHypertext linkingEasily accessible from outside the libraryDifferent types of resourcesMore full textSearch enginesLink resolversStatisticsNeed for new standards

Electronic Resource Management SystemsMany electronic resources to manageUntil recently, there werent tools availableLibraries used home-grown databases, spreadsheets, file folders, e-mail file folders

MIT Libraries

Developed VERA in FileMaker ProManages acquisitions metadataProvides access to e-resources through system-generated lists and searching capabilitiesUse SFX as their link resolver

Emporia State UniversitySerials Solutions A-Z List & MARC recordsEBSCOHost EJS Registration TrackerDatabases stored in content management system developed by the university webmasterLicense ReviewCreating bibliographic recordsScanning licenses into Millennium Media and linking to bib recordsLimiting access by creating a passworded electronic reserve coursePlanning for an ERM systemImplementing Innovatives WebBridge OpenURL link resolver

Kansas State UniversityK-State currently uses a homegrown databasesPurchased Verde and plan to implement

Electronic Resource Management Initiative Phase IDigital Library Federation (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative began fall 2002 and producedFunctional Requirements Workflow Diagrams Data Dictionary Entity Relationship Diagram Data Structure Final Report June 2005

Electronic Resource Management Initiative Phase IIData StandardsLicense ExpressionUsage DataTraining in License Term Mapping

Managing Licensing InformationMary BaileySerials & Electronic Resource LibrarianKansas State University LibrariesKLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007Topeka, Kansas

DLF ERM Initiative ReportAugust 2004Project to develop common specifications and tools for management of license agreements

http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/

ERMI License TermsCitation requirement detailsDisplayDigital copyPrint copyScholarly sharingDistance educationILL print or faxIllElectronic Fair use clause indicatorCourse Reserve printCourse Reserve electronic/ Cached copyElectronic link permissionCourse Pack printCourse Pack electronicRemote accessWalk-in usersAuthorized user groupsAuthorized locations

License Expression Working GroupNISO, DLF, EDItEUR and PLS were charged to develop a single standard for the exchange of license information between publishers and libraries

Monitor and make recommendations regarding the further development of standards relating to electronic resources and license expression

Actively engage in the development of the ONIX license messaging specification

http://www.niso.org/committees/License_expression/LicenseEx_comm.html

ONIX for Licensing TermsElectronic communication of usage terms between publishers and libraries

ONIX Publisher License format (ONIX-PL)Most recent draft March 2, 2007Goal of first stable version by June 2007

Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules & ERMsWhite paper January 17, 2007Prepared by subcommittee of DLF ERM initiativeInvestigation to determine the feasibility of propagating financial data across platforms with same or different ERMs and ILShttp://www.haverford.edu/library/DLF_ERMS_white_paper.pdf

Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU)Working groupCharge develop recommended practices to sell e-resources without licenses if they feel their perception of risk has been adequately addressed by current law and developing norms of behavior

http://www.niso.org/committees/SERU

SERU How will it workForego license rely on shared understandingOrders placed through vendors such as serial agents or consortiaSERU will be posted on NISO websiteNISO registry for publishers and librariesFAQ on the NISO SERU website

Managing Journal Article VersionsMary BaileySerials & Electronic Resource LibrarianKansas State University LibrariesKLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007Topeka, Kansas

Print JournalEasy to know what you hadDated, volume and issue numbersSpecific journal tangible- physical pieceDidnt change

Online JournalPublished versionEnhanced versionCorrected versionSelf ArchivedDraft, pre-print, post-printDifferent versions submitted to multiple journalsWhat is the definitive version?

Publishers discussion2000 article in Learned Publishing, Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science - Proposed that the only meaningful version was the Definitive version

2005 Sally Morris CEO of ALPSP proposed a working group of NISO/ALPSP members to explore issues about version and standard terminology

Working Groups goalsDetermine a set of use cases to work from

Define a set of terms that all can use

WG Recommendations (12/16/06)Terms and definitions for journal article versionsExplanation of project backgroundSet of use casesComments received

Propose that terms be disseminated by NISO/ASPSPhttp://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/Journal_Ver_comm.html

Proposed Terms and DefinitionsAuthors originalAccepted manuscriptProofVersion of recordCorrected version of recordEnhanced version of record

Authors originalVersion considered by author to be of sufficient quality to be submitted for review by a second party. Can be prior to formal review for publication. Author accepts full responsibility for article. Content and layout set by author

Accepted ManuscriptVersion has been accepted for publication in a journalPublisher takes responsibility for articleContent and layout as submitted by author

ProofVersion created as part of the publication processIncludes copy-edited manuscript, galley proofs, page proof and revised proofs.Content has been changed, layout is now publishers

Version of recordVersion made available by any organization acting as publisherIncludes early release articles

Corrected version of recordVersion of record in which errors in the version of record have been corrected.

Can be publishers, authors, or processing errors

Enhanced version of recordVersion of record that has been updated or enhanced by the provision of supplementary material

Last pointsDate stamps, version numbers and metadata records could be used to differentiate versions that may have several iterations.

Relationships need to be codified though the retrospective act of including an unambiguous reference or link within the metadata of a previous version to the version of record.

Value-adding process relationships(dissemination/publishing family)

Authors Original 2. Accepted Manuscript3. Proof

4. Version of Record5. Corrected or Enhanced Version of Record Conceptual provenance relationships(citation family)

Working papers Blog entry

Tech. Report Presentation

Assumptions In todays world:Any of the content objects (versions) in the previous graphic can be publicAny of the versions can reside in identical form in multiple placesAll of these versions should have metadata that links it to the related objectsContents objects in the conceptual family can become (move to) dissemination publishing objects

NISO/ALPSP Working Group

The Working Groups goal is to have a final draft available for public review in early 2007.

SourcesNISO/SLPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_version/JournalVer_comm.html

Peter McCracken. Managing Journal Article Versions Across the Lifecycle. Presented at the NISO Managing Electronic Collections Solutions Forum. Retrieved October 27, 2006 from http://www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/Collections-06-Agenda.html

Todd Carpenter. Standards Column Toward a Terminology of Journal Article Versions. Against the Grain 18, no. 6: 79-80

OpenURLMary BaileySerials & Electronic Resource LibrarianKansas State University LibrariesKLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007Topeka, Kansas

What is OpenURL?Type of URL containing resource metadata primarily used by libraries

Implemented by information providers by dynamically inserting an appropriate base URL into web pages sent to an authenticated user

Base URL in Version 0.1Consists of institutional link servers address and a query string

http://pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi?Genre=book&isbn=0836218310& title=The+Far+Side+Gallery+3

OpenURL Version 1.0http://pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:book&rft.isbn=0836218310&rft.btitle=The+Far+Side+Gallery+3

Most database vendors use one of these or a hybrid of the two, but you can expect to see the older version disappear

OpenURL StandardsAllows the user to access the appropriate copy with fewer clicks by:Packaging metadata and identifiers describing the information object and:Sending this package to a link-resolution server or resolver

Link Resolver Knowledge BaseIs the brain Database of all the holdings in a collectionContains journal coverageEmbargosTracks movement of titles between publishers

Knowledge Base Extended ServicesCheck local holdings for other formats (print, microform, etc.)Link to and populate ILL form on the OPACLink to book reviews or articles that cite the current resource

BrandingLink resolvers allow a library to create brandingOn your own library pages

Match on Publishers databases

OpenURL standards 1.0What our users expect Not quite one click, but certainly closerEliminates frustration of non-authorizationLink resolvers provide the added value of extended services

SourcesAnn Apps and Ross MacIntyre. Why OpenURL? D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 5. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2007 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may06/apps/05apps.html

Open URL Framework for Context Sensitive Services http://www.niso.org/committees/committee_ax.htm

Ross Singer. Helping You Buy: Link Resolver Tools. Computers in Libraries 26, no. 2:15-23

Wikipedia, OpenURL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenURL

Electronic Resource Management: COUNTER and SUSHIAnne Liebst, Washburn UniversityTri-Conference 2007April 10, 2007

Librarians need meaningful statistics from electronic databases/journals:Assess the value of different online products/services;Make better-informed purchasing decisions;Plan infrastructure and allocation of resources;Support internal marketing and promotion of library services.

Vendors require online usage statistics:Experiment with new pricing models;New product development;Plan infrastructure, improve website design and navigation; Obtain improved market analysis and demographics.

New ways to answer classic questions:Which titles should be in our collections?Which titles should we cancel?Which titles should we add?Is this collection a good value?

What is COUNTER?Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources;Located in the United Kingdom;Formally launched in March 2002;Leading initiative in the field;Objective is to develop an agreed upon international Codes of Practice governing the recording and exchange of online usage data;http://www.projectcounter.org

Usage reports:Because usage records are generated from one platform to another;COUNTER compliance will be a guiding principle for usage that should be reported; Encourages the use of standards for data collection by ERM systems.

Usage Reports:Full-text article requests by month and journal title;Turnaways by month and journal title;Number of item requests by month, journal title and page type;Total searches and sessions by month and database;Total searches, sessions and full-text requests by month and database;Turnaways by month and database;Searches and sessions by month and service.

What is SUSHI?Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative;Protocol and proposed standard that can be used by ERM and other systems to automate the transport of COUNTER formatted usage statistics;Standard client/server web services SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) request/response for the XML version of the COUNTER report.

Simply put:It is the Z39.93 protocol that defines an automated request and response model for the harvesting of electronic resource usage data utilizing a web services framework that can replace the user-mediated collection of usage data reports;Designed to work with Project COUNTER reports, the protocol is also extensible to other types of usage reports.

What are the benefits?It automates a tedious and repetitive process current practice calls for library staff to go to each individual publishers website and retrieve statistical data;In some cases it is COUNTER compliant and in other cases it is not; SUSHI automates the process and, by default, causes the publisher to put usage data into a standard format.

What are the benefits?The protocol is designed to be one report at a time, so requesting libraries simply make a separate request for each report needed;Results can be aggregated by the requesting library using their ERM system;Set a time and a day and your reports are automated;You do not need an ERM system to use SUSHI, any software that can initiate a web service that can use the SUSHI WSDL and Schema will work.

Test it out at:http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

Thank you!Mary Bailey, Kansas State UniversityDalene Hawthorne, Emporia State UniversityAnne Liebst, Washburn University

**Dalene mentioned the Electronic Resource management initiative

The charge was to develop common specifications and tools for management of license agreements.

The Report that came out in 2004 included 6 working documentsWorkflow diagram (4 pages) - Look at this if you have not seen it. Functional requirementsRelationship diagramsERM system data structureData Element Dictionary (approximately 400 elements)XML investigation*First of 4 pages of the workflow chart*By creating use cases, licenses terms or data elements were defined. These are a few of the 400 terms. *Once the terms had been defined and functional requirements understood, a License Expression Working group was formed.

EDitEUR - international group coordinating development of the standards infrastructure for electronic commerce in the book and serials industries.

PLS Publishers Licensing Society - UK licensing group - 25 years old. Owned by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the periodical Publishers Association and the Publishers Association. *ONIX Publisher License format is intended to support the communication of licensing terms for electronic resources from a publisher to a user institution, either directly or through a subscription agent.

It should enable the license terms to be electronically loaded into an ERM through a standard XML documentRight now the majority of license information must be hand entered (or linked as a PDF) in the ERM. Very time consuming.

Benefit to publishers enable them to more easily reference individual licenses, and it will allow for development of automated rights and license management systems for publishers.

*Following this ONIX PL working group a very recent White Paper on the Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules and ERMS was published on the web.

It describes workflows at 4 institutions, reports on conversations held with product managers and other relevant staff of the leading ERMs, summarized common themes and suggests next steps.

Paper is a draft for comment.*Another recent development is SERU - NISO Working Group on Shared E-Resource Understanding.

For those times when a license may not be needed, but some thing is needed. These Statements and framework are not intended to be a license. It is a mutual understanding between the library and the publisher.

Reduces processing costs and hopefully would remove some barriers for smaller publishers.

Statements address many of the same issues license agreements often address, but issues are discussed in broad terms. Common understandings explicitly defer to existing law. Express widely held best practices.

Not intended to replace or eliminate all license agreements. License agreements are contracts that require terms unique to each site precluding a streamlined process. *How will it work- when publisher and library agree a license is not needed- they can forgo the license and use this.

Can be direct between library and publisher, works with vendors or through a consortia agreement if all members are in agreement.

The Statement of Understanding will be published on the NISO website and the next step is getting publishers on board to register as willing to use this when a specific license is not needed. This step has already begun. *Change tracks here from licensing to the articles we want to use. *In the print journal world it was easy to know what you had. It was dated, maybe had volume and issue numbers. You had a citation and once it was published it did not change. *In the online world, there are any number of versions but no standard names. What one publisher calls a pre-print, another calls the same thing an authors manuscript. And another calls that a postprint.

What is the definive version, the one on the publishers website? the corrected version or the enhanced version?

What if there is more material linked from there? There are no standard terms.

*Publishers began discussing this at least as far back as 1999 and in 2000 the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers worked together to develop a position paper on how to define a scientific publication in the electronic era.

An article published in Learned Publishing in 2000, proposed that the only meaningful version of an article was the Definitive version. Or the version on the publishers website. The approach taken was that work in this area of versions should focus primarily on support of that one version and ignore all others.

Fortunately this was not accepted, because as time goes on versions continue to proliferate and change.

In 2005 Sally Morris CEO of the Association of Learned and Scholarly Publishers proposed that ALPSP and NISO form a working group to explore the issues involved and define some standard terminology. The Working Group was created in Sept. 2005 with 10 members. A review group of another 2 dozen members was appointed.

**The Recommendations of the WG found on the NISO website include: terms and definitions for journal article versionsA narrative the explains the background of the project and the rationale for the terms and definitions chosenA set of use cases that show how the terms could applyComments received from the Review group to an earlier submission and the WG groups responses to those.

*Authors original is deemed by the author ready for review either informally by colleagues or formally by a publisher.

If multiple authors one takes responsibility for submitting the article for review and dealing with later stages of proofs.

Use Original rather than draft because draft implies incomplete.

Without standards these may be called drafts, personal versions or pre-prints but those terms are not synonymous. *Acceptance by a publisher must follow some review process.

The WG recommends that a link from the Accepted manuscript to the publishers website is created with a description of the review process.

Format may not change at all if scanned or PDF created. If a file is processed automatically into a standardized form this may be a format shift only.

Terms now used for this stage are Authors Manuscript and Authors accepted manuscript. SHERPA/RoMEO use the term Postprint which makes very little sense at all.

SHERPA/RoMEO Securing Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access. Rights MEtadata for Open archiving *Common term used to refer to process stages between accepted manuscript and publication

Because so many people already understand this term it was decided to keep it. Changing it would create more confusion. *This version of record may be known as definitive, authorized, formal or published version. (And again the terms may not be synonymous.)

May exist in more than one location publishers website, aggregator site and one or more repositories.

There can be one or more copies of the VoR by only one Version of Record

It can exist in more than one format. (HTML, PDF, print, etc. )*Rather than have the original Version of Record disappear and a new corrected version replace it on the website, both versions should be available with links to the other. *Updates are not corrections. This is equivalent to erratum or corrigendum.

Materials that are linked to the version of record rather than become part of it - do not constitute an Enhanced version, if the link is unchanged.

If the link changes, then it is considered an Enhanced version because it is an update to the content, not an update to materials that sit outside the content.

If the version of record is amended by anyone other than the publisher, this is not considered a formal Corrected or Enhanced Version of record.

The working group recommends that if the version of record is amended by anyone other than the publisher this information be embedded in the metadata specifying who made the change and includes linking to the original version of record. *Best practices suggested inclusion of these two points.

1. That different iterations of a version be either date stamped or have version numbers along with including metadata that provides that information.

2. As new versions are added online, someone sould add linking or reference metadata within the previous version to help the user reach the newest version. *This is a graphical conception of relationships. On the left hand side we have a family of articles that have value added with each version. In each case the relationship shown by the green line a one way movement to the newest version.

The green lines indicate that the version would never go back.

The Red lines indicate that metadata connecting the versions would need to go back to the previous version.

On the right side are articles that can be changed, enhanced or moved in any direction without any formal process. Blue solid lines show that movement from one kind of publishing to another need no review process or publishers acceptance. The blue dashes indicate they could also move from this citation family into the dissemination/publishing family .

*Talked about the ERMs and journals article - now lets put them together*The ContentObject (the book, journal or article) is represented after the question mark as Key/Encoded Values (KEVs). This was great, but it left out an important piece. Authorization of use.

There are some link resolvers that still use these usually free, but In 2005 NISO approved a more robust version of the OpenURL as the standard. The standard Z39.88 is better know as Version 1.0

*In Version 1.0 the link become much more complicated and more specific. This version uses a Link Resolver knowledge base and only takes you to a link that your institution has access to.

There are still some databases not using these at all yet. - If you are using a link resolver, and renewing a database that does not use OpenURL standards, that is the time to let them know you would like to see that feature.

*The library identifies the collections they purchase, mark them as complete collections with access to all titles, or partial, marking each title the library purchases. By choosing the correct package, the coverage is usually already in the database, but can be customized if different. Same with urls.

Databases, aggegators and Free packages can be turned on.

*Branded citations within Historical Abstracts and America:History and Life databases.

Clicking the Get It button takes me to a page created by the Link Resolver Knowledge Base

*Online lists each target site with coverage listed.

Check for a print copy in the K-State Libraries Catalog. If the library owns this a click takes you to the record in the OPAC

No K-State copyTakes you to the ILL form to order. Once you are logged in it fills in the form for you.

Citations

Ask a librarian page with directions to contact our librarians

Get Cited JournalUlrichs citation

2nd screen shot is for a journal search. This one is available to K-State users through 4 different sources each with different coverage. The user can fill in specific information or just click go and get to the journal home page.