the niso erm data standards and best practices review tim jewell project co-chair university of...
TRANSCRIPT
The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review
Tim JewellProject Co-Chair
University of Washington
Electronic Resources & Libraries Conf.
Austin, TX
Feb. 1, 2010
A Working Definition for ERMs“Tools for managing the license agreements,
related administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of licensed electronic resources.”
Ellen Duranceau, Against The Grain, June 2005
Part 1: ERMI
ERMI “Family History” Chandler & Jewell Web Hub: 2001 Jewell DLF study (“Selection and Presentation of
Commercially Available Electronic Resources”): 2001 DLF/NISO Pre-standardization Workshop: 2002 DLF ERMI (Electronic Resource Management
Initiative): 2002-2004 ERMI 2 (Electronic Resource Management Initiative,
Phase II): 2006-2008 NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices
Review: 2009+
The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase I
ERMI Goals “Develop common specifications and tools for
managing the license agreements, related administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of licensed electronic resources”
Describe architectures needed for electronic resource management
Foster systems development Promote best practices and standards
http://www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm
Functional Requirements
Support the ‘Life Cycle’ of electronic resources: Selection and acquisition Access provision Resource administration User support and troubleshooting (staff
and end-users) Renewal and retention decisions
E-Resource Acquisitions Workflow
Evaluate
Content, Platform, Cost License Technical Feasibility
Approve / Negotiate
Implement
CatalogPortalProxy Server Link Resolver
OK OK OK
Order / Register for Access
Propose
Ongoing Management / Stewardship
Provide Support
EvaluateMonitor Provide Access
Order, RegisterOrder, Register
CatalogCatalog
Digital RegistryDigital Registry
Proxy serverProxy server
GatewayGateway
Link ResolverLink Resolver
Investigate
Inform usersInform users
Track problemsTrack problems
TroubleshootTroubleshoot
Manage changesManage changes
Provide TrainingProvide Training
TrialTrial
Assess need/budget
Assess need/budget
License terms
License terms
PricePrice
EvaluateEvaluate
Administer
Usage statsUsage stats
Review alternatives
Review alternatives
Review problemsReview
problems
User feedback
User feedback
Contact info
Payment, manage financials
Payment, manage financials
Setup contactsSetup contacts
Customize interfaceCustomize interface
Holdings management
Holdings management
Set up usage statisticsSet up usage statistics
The DLF ERMI 2004 Report Relationships (Data Model)
Packages and their constituent parts Knowing which resources share the same interface,
license terms, business terms…
Information (Data Dictionary) License permissions and constraints User IDs, passwords, administrative info Contacts for support and troubleshooting Cancellation restrictions, price caps, etc.
Workflows (Functional Requirements) Mounting Trials Routing Licenses Placing Orders Implementing access Notifying relevant staff
ERMI Report “by the numbers”:
1 Entity Relationship Diagram4 ERM Workflow Flowcharts8 Main Functional Requirements, 47
numbered subheads, +109 more detailed specifications
27 Data Structure “entities”~ 300 Data Elements in Dictionary
10 “Quick Fix” XML data elements
ERMI Successes Articulated the relationships among licenses, resources,
packages, providers, and platforms
Fostered recognition that licenses and related metadata had to be properly managed
Spawned the development of systems to manage e-resource information “If last year’s hot product was federated searching, then 2004
belongs to electronic resources management (ERM)” and of the impact of the DLF ERMI documents: “in a nearly unprecedented move, nearly every large automation vendor has used the specifications created by librarians.”
Andrew Pace, American Libraries, 2004
But . . .
ERMI was not a Standard
AND . . .
All has not been well in ERMI Land . . .
Abandoned vendor development projects
Slow, difficult, partial and/or failed implementations
Deferred purchase decisionsRecent conference program themes:
ALA: “Promise and Disappointment” ICOLC: “What Went Wrong?”
“What is to be done?”
Part 2: the Emerging ERM Standards Landscape
Why Standards? Reduce re-keying Reduce maintenance cost & disruption Durability of data Avoid supplier lock-in Easier development path Platform for collaboration Whole system economies
Source: “The Business Case for Standards” (JISC)
Standards vs. Best Practices?NISO Standards
Balloted Examples: MARC, ONIX-SOH, Z39.50
Formally Designated Best Practices Examples: KBART, SERU
“Local” Best Practices
Current E-Resource Standards Landscape
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: 1 Link resolvers & knowledge bases
Open URL KBART Open URL Quality Metrics Project (new 2-year
NISO project)
Source: R. Kasprowski: “Best Practice & Standardization Initiatives for Managing Electronic Resources,” ASIST Bull., Oct/Nov 2008 (v. 35 no. 1, pp. 13-19)
KBART (Knowledge Bases and Related Tools)
Joint effort of NISO and the UK Serials Group (launched January 2008)
Draft guidelines for best practice to effect smoother interaction between members of the knowledge base supply chain Content standards for holdings data exchange
Centralized information portal http://www.uksg.org/kbart/
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: 2
The Work, manifestations & access points MARC DOIs and CrossRef ONIX-SOH, ONIX-SPS, ONIX-SRN Project Transfer ISBN-13 ISSN-L ISTC Proposed NISO Work Item: Recommended
Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: 3
Integration of usage & cost-related data COUNTER SUSHI CORE
COUNTER: Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources
Code of Practice first released Jan 2003Release 3 published Aug 2008Code of Practice Addresses:
Content, format, delivery mechanisms and data processing rules for a set of core usage reports
Terminology Layout and format of reports Processing of usage data Delivery of reports
NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI): Z39.93
A key project of the ERMI 2 initiative
Solves the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers
A web-services model for requesting data that replaces the user’s need to download files from vendor’s website The SUSHI client runs on the library’s server, usually
associated with an ERM system. The SUSHI server runs on the Content Provider’s server,
and has access to the usage data.
SUSHI is Now a Requirement of the COUNTER 3 Code of Practice
Vendors must be SUSHI-compliant as of September 2009
Future of SUSHI: Beyond COUNTER reports
SUSHI designed as a general protocol for retrieving XML “reports”
Can be used for non-COUNTER usage reports
Can also be used to automate delivery of other XML “messages”, such as: Holdings data with ONIX-SOH License terms with ONIX PL
Source: Oliver Pesch Presentation <http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi/info/OPESCH_-_SUSHI-Lille.ppt>
NISO Cost of Resource Exchange (CORE): Z39.93-200x
DLF-ERMI White Paper on Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules of Integrated Library Systems and Electronic Resource Management Systems (January 2008)
Working Group Co-chairs Ed Riding, SirsiDynix Ted Koppel, Auto-Graphics
Facilitate transfer of acquisitions data between ILS and ERM systems
provide a common method of requesting cost-related information from an ILS for a specific electronic resource
Develop and refine the list of data elements to exchange create a transport protocol useful in moving these data elements from one
system to another. Write a small number of use cases
Draft Standard for Trial Use available through March 2010http://www.niso.org/workrooms/core
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: 4
Coding license terms & defining consensus ONIX-PL SERU
ERMI Terms of Use Elements
Fair Use Clause Indicator Database Protection Override
Indicator All Rights Reserved Indicator Citation Requirement Details Authorized User Definition Local Authorized User
Definition Indicator Other User Restriction Note Other Use Restriction Note Concurrent User Digitally Copy* Print Copy*
Scholarly Sharing* Distance Education* Interlibrary Loan Print or Fax* Interlibrary Loan Secure
Electronic Transmission*
Interlibrary Loan Electronic*
Interlibrary Loan Record Keeping Required Indicator
Course Reserve Print* Course Reserve Electronic/
Cached Copy* Electronic Link Permission*
Course Pack Print* Course Pack Electronic*
Remote Access*
ERMI Permission Values
Permitted (explicit) Permitted (interpreted) Prohibited (explicit) Prohibited (interpreted) Silent (uninterpreted) Not Applicable
ERMI Phase 1 a basis for a license terms expression standard; commissioned from Rightscom
Valuable starting point, but further development required
Terms dictionary would need a more rigorous ontological structure
Proposed an <indecs>-based rights model: licenses are about events (permitted, prohibited, required, etc)
EDItEUR review of ERMI
Joint License Expression Working Group (LEWG) sponsored by NISO, DLF, PLS and EDItEUR (2005)
now ONIX-PL Working Group (2008) http://www.niso.org/workrooms/onixpl
A structured ontology and XML messaging protocol for exchanging licensing information
ONIX-PL format specification v1.0 (2008) Pilots underway by JISC and others ONIX-ERMI mapping completed 2007
ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL)
Enter SERU
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: 5
Data exchange using institutional identifiers I2 (“licensing unit identifier”) OCLC WorldCat Registry Vcard Shibboleth, Eduperson, NCIP?
I2: Institutional Identifiers Working Group http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2 Co-chairs
Grace Agnew, Rutgers University Tina Feick, Harrassowitz
A globally unique, extensible identifier for institutions for use in the information supply chain
E-Resources, Institutional Repositories, Library Resource Management
Related work: OCLC Networking Names http://oclcresearch.webjunction.org/networking_n
ames
Learning from ERMI, SUSHI, CORE, etc. Comprehensiveness is difficult
To describe To build and implement Example: e-metrics
Many useful sources, multiple views needed
E-resources and markets change quickly
Small-scale development worksData sharing is necessary
Standards & Best Practice Groupings: A Final Issue
“Relationships among standards”
A “NISO ERM Best Practices Framework?”
Part 3: The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review
Timeline Jan. 2009: Began exploratory focus group
discussions at ALA Midwinter June 2009: NISO Business Information
Topics Committee approved project Sep. 2009: Ivy Anderson presents at NISO
Library Resource Mgmt. Systems conference Nov. 2009: Steering Committee finalized Dec. 2009: Charge revised/finalized April 2010: Report Deadline
ALA Midwinter 2009 NISO-led Discussions: What We Heard Discussed current ERM needs and future of ERMI with
over a dozen domain experts: Librarians, system developers, standards representatives,
supply chain vendors
Libraries want: Simplified license elements Workflow tools and best practices Authority control for products, vendors (including tracking
vendor name changes, acquisitions & mergers) Management of data elements for future interoperability and
data transport Holdings data for ebooks and journals – a huge pain point
for many customers – ““this resource from this publisher / provider on this platform during this time period“
What We Heard: Flexibility Need an ERMI lite for selected core elements
and lots of free form notes – for business terms, resources in negotiation, etc.
Rapidly evolving business models – open access, pay-per-view…
What We Heard: Conflicting Inputs
Focus on data elements, leave application to system developers. User community should shape application and use
Libraries need best practices guidance to help them implement systems
What We Heard: ERMI Still Has Many Champions
“ERMI has done a good job of identifying and organizing the problem, not necessarily solving it”
“One thing ERMI has done well is to define a data dictionary that different systems can use to move data around“
“ERMI should be the master custodian of data elements”
We still need ERMI to create a context for how all of the pieces need to work together”
Major Takeaways About Standards
ERMI data model is still important for reference and context Data dictionary is key to functionality and interoperability License elements / values need simplification – ONIX-PL may
or may not serve library needs Vendor and product identity management is an ongoing
problem need to accurately represent vendor-resource-holdings
relationships need to manage resources and holdings in a standardized and
shareable way
About Libraries Libraries need help with workflows and best practices
About Systems Existing systems are under-developed Libraries need more specific functionality – ability to import /
export data, support everyday business activities / functions Data exchange capability is critical
The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review: the “Plan”
Perform a ‘gap analysis’ regarding ERM-related data, standards, and best practices
Begin with review of ERM data dictionary, mapping elements to other relevant standards projects
Consult with vendors, libraries using ERM systems and other stakeholders for additional feedback on data requirements and ERM system implementation and management issues.
More information at http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=ermreview
The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review: Deliverables
Recommend future of ERMI Data Dictionary
Describe typical challenges libraries face in using currently available ERM systems and services
Identify gaps in interoperability and best practices
Gap Analysis Steering Group
Ivy Anderson (CDL, co-chair) Tim Jewell (UW, co-chair) Jeff Aipperspach (Serials Solutions) Jeanne Downey (University of Houston) Liam Earney (JISC) Deberah England (Wright State) Kathryn Harnish (Ex Libris) Rafal Kasprowski (Rice) Tim McGeary (Lehigh) Angela Riggio (UCLA)
ERMI “Mapping” Strategy
Work from related standards and best practices
Determine correspondence, overlap Compare meanings, uses Determine whether ERMI data dictionary
should address, or relevant standard (w/revisions) sufficient to address ERM needs
Survey Work Plan
Assimilate recent ERM survey work Identify major topics to focus on Possibilities:
System implementation problems Workflows, internal communication Licensing Consortial services Cost per use/evaluation Ebooks
Closing thoughts . . .Budget constraints are real, getting
tougher, and not going awayLibraries need to get more efficient We need more:
Modularity, specialized applications Data sharing and transport “Light weight” standards Flexible, dynamic structures for “knitting”
pieces together where needed
To participate . . .
contact the NISO office at www.niso.org/contact Tim at [email protected] Ivy at [email protected]