The NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review NISO Standards Update ALA 2012 Annual Conference, Anaheim Tim Jewell University of Washington

ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Working Group Working Group Formed: 2010 Tim Jewell (chair, University of Washington) Jeff Aipperspach (formerly Serials Solutions) Ivy Anderson (California Digital Library) Deberah England (Wright State University) Rafal Kasprowski (Rice University) Tim McGeary (Lehigh University) Bob McQuillan (Innovative Interfaces) Angela Riggio (UCLA)

Successor to Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative (“ERMI”) and “ERMI2”  DLF/NISO “Pre-standardization” workshop  Chicago (May 2002)  “ERMI” (2004) – Data model and dictionary established working standards for E-resource management  “ERMI2” (2008) – Training for license analysis; developed SUSHI protocol and NISO CORE recommended practice

Report Goals Gap analysis of standards and best practices  “Mapped” current standards and best practices to the ERMI Data Dictionary to identify gaps  Literature review of ERM successes and challenges Recommendations for the future of ERMI Data Dictionary Recommendations for future work

Final Report: Making Good on the Promise of ERM: A Standards and Best Practices Discussion Paper Making Good on the Promise of ERM: A Standards and Best Practices Discussion Paper Available on NISO website (

Categories analyzed and mapped to the ERMI Data Dictionary 1. Link resolvers & knowledge bases 2. Works, manifestations & access points 3. Usage & cost-related data 4. License information 5. Data exchange using institutional identifiers Source: R. Kasprowski: “Best Practice & Standardization Initiatives for Managing Electronic Resources,” ASIST Bull., Oct/Nov 2008 (v. 35 no. 1, pp )

Findings 1 In most of these areas, targeted standards and best practices have evolved to fulfill and/or exceed the scope of the ERMI DD  KBARTCOUNTER  SUSHII2 for Institutional Identifiers  ONIX for Serials (SOH, SPS, SRN) NISO should continue encouraging well-focused ERM Standards Development

Findings 2 Do we still need an ERM Data Dictionary?  2009 input to ERMI Gap Project: ERMI data model still important for reference and context Data dictionary is key to functionality and interoperability  Continued value to a data dictionary encompassing ERM functions, facilitating interoperability, and evolving with technologies and business models BUT  Large, complex project lacking community “will”  Better to focus on more targeted areas

Findings 3: Problematic Areas Interoperability  CORE (Cost of Resource Exchange) Designed for interoperability between ILS and ERM systems Needs refinement, implementation testing and uptake  ILS, Link Resolvers, ERM systems…

Findings 3: Problematic Areas License Expression/Encoding  ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL)  More robust than ERMI, but little uptake  Neither adequately addresses the needs of libraries

ONIX-PL Developments License Expression Working Group created (2005) ONIX-PL to ERMI mapping, etc. (2007) EDItEUR/NISO ONIX-PL Working Group ( ) Favorable Reports  NISO webinars, 2008 & 2009 (SCELC, Serials Solutions, EDItEUR)  ER&L 2010 presentation (Castro & Chen)

And Then... ?

But we saw some “hopeful signs”  UK and Canada RELI  “License registry” demonstration system JISC Collections  80 licenses encoded in ONIX-PL  Beta version of side-by-side comparison tool OCUL (Ontario Council of University Libraries)  30 Licenses encoded in ONIX-PL  OCLC Interest for Web Scale Management?  Kuali OLE Interest

Findings 4: Creating a Viable “License Expression Environment” Shared, extensible encoding scheme Scope/select how much to encode Ability to expand encodings & displays Editing tools Sharing encoded licenses Interoperability, move and re-use data Vendor/publisher participation

Recommendation: A Renewed NISO Role in License Expression? Re-start active discussions to achieve consensus on library and community needs (a “third way?”)

(More) Unfinished Business: The Workflow Problem Functional Requirements outlined in 2004 ERMI report (Appendices A & B)  But not implemented in most systems “Establish a site-defined routing workflow for resources approved for purchase”:  Send notifications to designated staff/depts.  Place resources in a queue for further action: Placing an order Completion of cataloging Implementation of access management

The Workflow Problem A key pain point in 2009 task force planning discussions Many “functional areas” Trial and selection; Licensing; Acquisitions; Cataloging; Registration & activation, Access maintenance, Troubleshooting, Evaluation... Task force investigation reinforced this concern  Dozens of local workflow documents reviewed

Workflow Findings The term “workflow” lacks a consistent definition  problems often discussed at different levels of granularity Local context, organization, and resources are important and lead to diverse solutions Significant risk for systems developers in ‘getting it wrong’ Despite diversity, substantial consensus about many basic tasks and decision points

Workflow Recommendations NISO should convene a series of webinars in 2012 to identify common needs and best practices Focus on specific functional task areas noted Include vendor / developer perspectives Discuss findings at future conferences to guide further work