The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Tim Jewell Project Co-Chair University of...

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 tjewell@uw.edu Ivy at ivy.anderson@ucop.edu