Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front

Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseyeLaurie Kaplan, Proquest

NASIG 29th Annual Conference, Fort Worth TXMay 3, 2014

What’s NISO?

• Non-profit industry trade association accredited by ANSI with 150+ members

• Mission of developing and maintaining standards related to information, documentation, discovery and distribution of published materials and media

• Represent US interests to ISO TC46 (Information and Documentation) and also serve as Secretariat for ISO TC46/SC 9 (Identification and Description)

• Responsible for standards like ISSN, DOI, Dublin Core metadata, DAISY digital talking books, OpenURL, SIP, NCIP, MARC records and ISBN (indirectly)

• Volunteer driven organization: 400+ spread out across the world

Premise of “Standards”

• Consensus standards created by a community with various stakeholders

• Trust• Leading to broader acceptance

• Standards as plumbing• Standards facilitate trade, commerce and innovation• Standards reduce costs• Standards support better communication and

interoperability across systems

the process of standards creation

4

STAN

DARD

draft

Considerations

• Value to be gained• Feasibility• Community(ies) affected• Stakeholders (Vested interests)• Participants required/desired• Timeframes

5

Today

• Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART)• Presentation and Identification of E-Journals

(PIE-J)• Open Discovery Initiative (ODI)• Open Access Metadata and Indicators (OAMI)

Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) Recommended Practice

KBART PHASE II

NOW AVAILABLE!

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart

article citation

OpenURL query (base URL

+ metadata string)

link resolver/knowledge base

target (cited)article

publisherwebsite

database

printcollections

gateways

publisher/providerholdings data

repository

OpenURL basics

Where the chain breaks

• Wrong data– Publisher gives wrong metadata for title to the KB– Link resolver uses bad metadata to make link– Link does not resolve to correct target– Dead end

• Outdated data– Publisher said it has a particular issue– Link resolver links to an article from it– Issue has been removed– Dead end – Or, provider doesn’t notify that issue is now live– So no traffic from link resolvers to that issue!

KBART: A simple metadata exchange format

Phase II work:

1. Metadata for Consortia2. Open Access metadata3. E-book/ Conference Proceeding metadata

12

13

1. Consortia

• Survey results• Libraries purchase titles as a consortium• Consortium administrators and librarians need

the same title-level information from their consortium-purchased packages as they do from “vanilla” publisher packages.

• Difficult to obtain accurate consortium-specific title lists.

14

1. Consortia

• Re-states the importance of providing a separate file for each “Global” package that the Content Provider offers.

• Consortium-specific files should be created when: – A unique set of titles has been packaged for the

consortium, different than the Content Provider’s standard packages.

– A package contains unique dates of coverage.

15

1. Consortia• Changes to file naming for ALL files. • Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file

structure. – [ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[Package

Name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt– Applicable to Consortia packages and Regional variants

(e.g., “Asia-Pacific”, “Germany”, etc.)– “Global” value is used if the package

is available for all libraries to purchase.

16

2. Book Series / Proceedings

• Phase I – recommendations were serial-centric– Some fields were dual-purpose

• date_first_issue_online• Identifiers

– Holding’s content type was ambiguous

• Challenges– Both serial and monograph– Users search for both titles

• New fields– parent_publication_title_id– preceding_publication_title_id

2. E-book metadata

• Phase II– Specify fields for use by serials and those for use

by monographs – disambiguation of usage – 4 new monographic fields added, plus

- publication_type - first_editor- parent_publication- preceding_publication_title_id

17

18

3. Open Access

• Much more content now available in ‘OA’ form• Importance of facilitating access to both paid

and free peer-reviewed, quality publications (not just fee-based material).

19

3. Open Access

• Challenges– What to do with Hybrid OA models?• Delayed OA – example: free access until one year ago. • Title transfer OA – title changes from OA to paid (or vice

versa) upon transfer to another publisher. • Author-paid OA – some articles fee-based.• Full OA – all content is free

– Title-level vs. article-level OA metadata

20

3. Open Access

• Free-text coverage_notes field suggested to explain subtleties of OA availability for that particular title.

• New field – access_type– “F” – title is open access or free– “P” – title requires payment of fee of any kind (even if

not 100% material is paid)

Use repeated fields for hybrid titles with different coverage types

1. Everything can be found at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/endorsement/

2. Review the requirements (data samples available)3. Format your title lists accordingly.4. Self-check to ensure they conform to the recommended

practice5. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data

updates6. Register your organization on the KBART registry website:

http://bit.ly/kbartregistry

Publisher Involvement

NISO – PIE-JPresentation and Identification of

Electronic Journals

Laurie KaplanMay 3, 2014

NASIG Annual Conference

Brief History

• NISO Working Group created in October, 2010• 13 Working Group members representing

libraries, publishers/providers, and content solutions vendors

• PIE-J finalized as a Recommended Practice, dated March 25, 2013

• Standing Committee created in Sept. 2013• 10 Committee members

PIE-J

• This Recommended Practice was developed in order to provide guidance on the presentation of e-journals

• particularly in the areas of title presentation, accurate use of ISSN, and citation practices

• to publishers and platform providers as well as to solve some long-standing concerns of serials librarians

PIE-J Highlights

The recommended practice guidelines address the following:• Retention of title and citation information under which articles were

originally published• Display of title histories, including information relating to title changes and

related metadata• Display of correct ISSN for different formats and for changed titles• Retention and display of vital publication information across the history of

a journal, • including publisher names; clear numbering and dates; editors, editorial

boards, and sponsoring organizations; and frequency of publication• Graphic design and inclusion of information that allows easy access to • all content• Special considerations for retroactive digitization

• Full 67 page Recommended Practice includes positive examples of each point listed and additional related Appendix materials.

• Available on the NISO site: http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/piej/download.php/10368/rp-16-2013_pie-j.pdf

Tri-fold Print Version: Electronic Version:

These are both two page brochures focused on the main points in the recommended practice

Representative Example

• One examples from the Appendix

• Clearly indicates the point being illustrated

• Links in the caption point to the relevant recommendation(s)

Creation of the Standing Committee

• Created in September 2013• 10 committee members

What has the SC done?

• Review of all sections– Indicate any changes

• New document(s) posted– Publisher/Provider letter template

• Marketing Efforts– Publicity letter for discussion lists and related

newsletters– Presentations at conferences

PIE-J Document Statistics

4854

974

1459

129

Over 7400 Downloads (as of 4/23/14)

Full Recommended Practice

Print brochure

Online brochure

New Pie-J Letter

PIE-J Document Statistics

Published March 2013:• Full Recommended Practice – 4854 downloads• Print Brochure – 974 downloads• Online Brochure – 1459 downloads– These stats rose quickly after the publicity information

was sent to various discussions lists and newsletters

Published March 2014:• Publisher /Provider letter – 129 downloads

As of April 9, 2014

What can you do?

• Notify publishers/providers when their websites are in compliance with PIE-J, or are confusing or missing relevant information

• Work with interested publishers/providers who want to improve their sites:– Sage project with California Digital Library and

Becky Culbertson• Send NISO your feedback

Contact information

PIE-J Website:• http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej

Send feedback to:– nisohq@niso.org with subject PIE-J Feedback

Thank you!

The Open Discovery Initiative

The context for ODI

• Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions – Based on index of a wide range of content– Commercial and open access– Primary journal literature, ebooks, and more

• Adopted by thousands of libraries around the world, and impact millions of users

36

General Goals

• Define ways for libraries to assess the level of content providers’ participation in discovery services

• Help streamline the process by which content providers work with discovery service vendors

• Define models for “fair” linking from discovery services to publishers’ content

• Determine what usage statistics should be collected for libraries and for content providers

37

Balance of ConstituentsLibraries

Publishers

Service Providers

38

Marshall Breeding, Independent ConsultantJamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard UniversityKen Varnum, University of Michigan

Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon

Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus (D2D liaison/observer)Michele Newberry, Independent

Lettie Conrad, SAGE PublicationsJeff Lang, Thomson ReutersLinda Beebe, American Psychological AssocAaron Wood, Alexander Street Press

Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka

Jenny Walker, Independent ConsultantJohn Law, ProquestMichael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services

David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC)

Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)

Subgroups

• Technical recommendations for data format and data transfer

• Communication of library’s rights/Descriptors regarding level of indexing

• Definition of fair linking• Exchange of usage data

39

Deliverables

• Vocabulary• NISO Recommended Practice– Data format and data transfer– Library rights to specific content– Level of indexing– Fair linking– Usage statistics

• Mechanisms to evaluate conformance with recommended practice

40

Current steps

• 30-day public comment period Fall 2013• Working Group evaluation of comments, edits

to RP, responses• Working Group approval• Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee

approval• NISO Publication

41

Open Access Metadata and Indicators

Why is This Necessary?

Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids =

Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and responsibilities =

Confusion concerning who can do what when

Audience Segments

• Readers• Authors• Publishers• Funders• Search engines/discovery services• Academic Libraries

Working Group’s Objectives

1. A specified format for bibliographic metadata and possibly, a set of visual signals, describing the readership rights associated with a single scholarly work

2. Recommended mechanisms for publishing and distributing this metadata

3. A report on the feasibility of including clear information on downstream re-use rights within the current project and, if judged feasible, inclusion of these elements in outputs 1 and 2

4. A report stating how the adoption of these outputs would answer (or not) specific use cases to be developed by the Working Group

Working Group Membership

Co-chairs:• Cameron Neylon, PLoS• Ed Pentz, CrossRef• Greg Tananbaum, Consultant

(SPARC)Members: • Tim Devenport, EDItEUR• Gregg Gordon, Social Science

Research Network (SSRN)• Julie Hardesty, Indiana

University Library• Paul Keller, Europeana

Licensing Framework

• Cecy Marden, The Wellcome Library

• Jack Ochs, American Chemical Society

• Heather Reid, Copyright Clearance Center

• Jill Russell, University of Birmingham

• Chris Shillum, Elsevier• Ben Showers, JISC• Eefke Smit, STM Association• Christine Stohn, Ex Libris• Timothy Vollmer, Creative

Commons

“open access” politically fraught

• Won’t use this labelFactual information:– Is a specified work free to read – can it be

accessed by anyone who has access to the Web?– What re-use rights are granted to this reader?

• Minimal set of metadata needed• Decided not to create/recommend a logo

<free_to_read> Tag

• Indicates content can be read or viewed by any user without payment or authentication

• Simple attribute of “yes” or “no” • Optional start and end dates to accommodate

embargoes, special offers, etc.

<free_to_read="no" start_date="2014-02-3” end_date=”2015-02-03"/><free_to_read="yes" start_date="2015-02-3”/>

• Content of this tag would include a stable identifier expressed as an HTTP URI

• URI would point to license terms that are human and/or machine readable

• Multiple URIs can be listed if article exists under specific license for certain period of time and then changes<license_ref start_date="2014-02-03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/license_v1.html</license_ref><license_ref start_date="2015-02-03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/open_license.html</license_ref>

<license_ref> Tag

Distributing Metadata

• Who? Publishers, aggregators, content providers

• Include the metadata in all standard metadata sets– Intended that this population/distribution will

become part of standard editorial and production workflows

• Could also include in alerts such as e-TOCs and RSS feeds and A&I feeds

What’s Next?

• Public Review and Comment period• Working Group will address and potentially

incorporate Comments• NISO Approval• NISO Publication as a Recommended Practice

Benefits of Successful Implementation

Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids =

Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and responsibilities =

Confusion concerning who can do what when+

OA Metadata Indicator =

Transmittal of an article’s openness in a manner that makes discovery, tracking, readership, and (hopefully)

reuse straightforward

Thank you! Questions?

Spring Colors! by cerebros1 is licensed under CC-BY 2.0