The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Tim Jewell Project 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):  ERMI 2 (Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase II):  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

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, CostLicenseTechnical Feasibility Approve / Negotiate Implement Catalog PortalProxy Server Link Resolver OK Order / Register for Access Propose Ongoing Management / Stewardship

Provide Support Evaluate Monitor Provide Access Order, Register Catalog Digital Registry Proxy server Gateway Link Resolver Investigate Inform users Track problems Troubleshoot Manage changes Provide Training Trial Assess need/budget License terms Price Evaluate Administer Usage stats Review alternatives Review problems User feedback Contact info Payment, manage financials Setup contacts Customize interface Holdings management Set 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 Diagram  4 ERM Workflow Flowcharts  8 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 decisions  Recent 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 )

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

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 2003  Release 3 published Aug 2008  Code 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

NISO Cost of Resource Exchange (CORE): Z x  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

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 -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)   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  I 2 (“licensing unit identifier”)  OCLC WorldCat Registry  Vcard  Shibboleth, Eduperson, NCIP?

I2: Institutional Identifiers Working Group   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  ames 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 works  Data 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 mreview mreview

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 away  Libraries 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  Tim at  Ivy at