DLF ERMI Update ALCTS Serials Standards Forum Tim Jewell University of Washington DLF ERMI Coordinator “Accidental ERM Standards Guy”

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

The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase I

ERMI Goals Formal Describe architectures needed Establish lists of elements and definitions Write and publish XML Schemas/DTD’s Promote best practices and standards for data interchange Informal Promote growth and development of vendor and local ERM systems and services

Provide Support Evaluate Monitor Provide Access Order, Register Catalog Digital Registry Proxy server Gateway WebBridge 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

Functionality “Quick Take” Store and display data not in current systems: For End Users Auxiliary descriptive data Permitted uses (and restrictions) Availability Technical and platform-specific issues For Staff Detailed License information Administrative IDs and passwords Configuration and management information Usage statistics and training information

Data Dictionary

Data Structure

The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase II Data Standards Data Dictionary revision Training for License Term Mapping (ARL/DLF collaboration) License Expression Standards E-Resource Usage Statistics Protocol for automated delivery (“SUSHI”) Statement of functional requirements

1: “MAPPING LICENSE LANGUAGE” Workshops Trisha Davis and Diane Grover appointed ARL Visiting Program Officers to develop and offer workshops Offered at 2005 and 2006 ALA Annual, 2006 NASIG Also to be offered at Charleston Conference 2006, ALA midwinter 2007

License Data Scenarios Within an ERM/ILS system: Convey appropriate license restrictions. Show or hide resources depending on availability to certain groups. Prompt staff for action Exchange with consortial partners License feeds from vendors

License Mapping Workshop Goals Examine the ERMI “subset” Terms of Use Hands-on practice mapping a license Preparation for profiling local ERM for expressing Terms of Use

What are we “mapping”? Terms of use subset from the ERMI Appendix E: beginning p. 151 Developed to reflect key library use issues Does not include all issues governed by license agreements

Sample ERMI “Terms of Use” Digitally copy Print copy Scholarly sharing Interlibrary loan print or fax Interlibrary loan secure electronic transmission Course reserve print Course reserve electronic – cached copy Electronic link Course pack print Course pack electronic

Values: Permitted and Prohibited Permitted (explicit) Permitted (interpreted) Prohibited (explicit) Prohibited (interpreted) Silent (uninterpreted) Not applicable

Mapping Challenges Different wording Term buried in the license License more granular than data element Data element more granular than license No match between license and data elements Local interpretation

2: License Expression Standards

ERMI Phase 1 as a basis for a standard for license terms expression; commissioned from Rightscom ERMI 1 was a valuable starting point, but further development required Terms dictionary would need a more rigorous (onto)logical structure Proposed an -based rights model: licenses are about events (permitted, prohibited, required, etc) EDItEUR review of ERMI

Proof of concept project in 2005, supported by the Publishers Licensing Society and JISC Work-in-progress drafts published on the EDItEUR website Two JISC projects under way in 2005/2006 International License Expression Working Group (LEWG) sponsored by NISO, DLF, PLS and EDItEUR, to provide input to ONIX development and to ensure liaison with ERMI 2 ONIX for Licensing Terms

The first member of what will become a family of ONIX Licensing Terms formats, using the same underlying structures An XML message format that can deliver a structured expression of a publisher’s license for the use of (digital) resources, from publisher to agent to subscribing institution (or consortium) A specification, an XML schema, and a formal dictionary of controlled values ONIX Publisher License message

Message header: from, to, date, etc Preamble: license identification, parties, dates, signatories, etc Definitions Structured terms Term citations Components of the message

License Expression Working Group Jointly sponsored by DLF, NISO, EDItEUR, and PLS. Large representative membership. Working with EDItEUR’s ONIX standards as basis for new ONIX Licensing message. Will allow (but not require) greater specificity than DLF ERMI terms.

Basic XML Structure—Usage Terms Relies on previous definitions: This Agent Class, “Authorized Users,” may perform this Usage, “Print,” with this Resource, “Licensed Content.”

Sample ONIX License XML

SUSHI 3: Usage Data and SUSHI Solve the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers by: –Promoting consistency in usage formatting (XML) –Automating the process

SUSHI NISO SUSHI Working Group Adam Chandler (co-chair), Cornell Oliver Pesch (co-chair), EBSCO Ivy Anderson, California Digital Library Patricia Brennan, Thomson Scientific Ted Fons, Innovative Interfaces, Inc. Bill Hoffman, Swets Information Services Tim Jewell, University of Washington Ted Koppel, Ex Libris

SUSHI SUSHI Contributing Partners Founding Members: EBSCO Ex Libris Innovative Interfaces, Inc. Swets Information Services Thomson Scientific Newer members: Endeavor Information Systems Florida Center for Library Automation College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) from the State of Florida Community Colleges MPS ScholarlyStats Otto Harrassowitz OCLC Project Euclid Serials Solutions SirsiDynix

SUSHI COUNTER Member supported with members including: libraries; publishers; aggregators Formed in 2003 Goal: –Allow credible and consistent usage measurement between vendors

SUSHI COUNTER Code of Practice Code of Practice first released Jan 2003 Release 2 published Apr 2005 Code of Practice Addresses: –Terminology –Layout and format of reports –Processing of usage data –Categories –Delivery of reports

SUSHI COUNTER Usage Reports Journal Report 1: –Full Text Article Requests by Month and Journal Journal Report 2: –Turnaways by Month and Journal Database Report 1: –Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Database Database Report 2: –Turnaways by Month and Database Database Report 3: –Searches and Sessions by Month and Service

SUSHI Journal Report 1: Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal

SUSHI Client Server Usage SUSHI is machine-to- machine web service. The usage consolidation application acts as the “client” and initiates a request. The content provider hosts the “server” web service which fulfills the request and returns the results.

SUSHI Client Server Usage reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition The REQUEST is a simple XML structure and includes the following basic elements: -The requester identifies the consolidation application (e.g. Innovative ERM). - The customerReference identifies the customer for which the usage is to be pulled. -The reportDefinitiion describes the report to pull and any parameters, such as the date range. The REQUEST is a simple XML structure and includes the following basic elements: -The requester identifies the consolidation application (e.g. Innovative ERM). - The customerReference identifies the customer for which the usage is to be pulled. -The reportDefinitiion describes the report to pull and any parameters, such as the date range.

SUSHI Client Server Usage reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition The Content Provider’s server will verify that the customer referenced has authorized the requestor to harvest reports on their behalf. Note that a standard security approach for Web Services will be used to authenticate the requestor. The Content Provider then processes the request and formats the XML response. The Content Provider’s server will verify that the customer referenced has authorized the requestor to harvest reports on their behalf. Note that a standard security approach for Web Services will be used to authenticate the requestor. The Content Provider then processes the request and formats the XML response.

SUSHI Client Server Usage reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition reportRequest requestor customerReference reportDefinition reportResponse requestor customer reportDefinition reports reportResponse requestor customer reportDefinition reports The RESPONSE is an XML structure basically repeats the request (to allow the client to confirm that the response matches the request) and includes the “reports” element which encapsulates the COUNTER report. The report itself if formatted using the official COUNTER schema for reports. This protocol is designed to be easily extended to harvest other reports. The RESPONSE is an XML structure basically repeats the request (to allow the client to confirm that the response matches the request) and includes the “reports” element which encapsulates the COUNTER report. The report itself if formatted using the official COUNTER schema for reports. This protocol is designed to be easily extended to harvest other reports.

SUSHI 1234 Innovative ERM 789 Example University This is an example of a reportRequest. As you can see, this is a very light-weight protocol.

SUSHI SUSHI Project Status Web site available Overview, list of participants, toolkit, sample code, developer listserv Journal Report 1 Prototype doneJournal Report 1 Prototype done Security “wrapper” doneSecurity “wrapper” done First deployment completeFirst deployment complete Memorandum of Understanding between NISO and COUNTERMemorandum of Understanding between NISO and COUNTER Plan to complete technical work by end of MayPlan to complete technical work by end of May

SUSHI SUSHI Next Steps Publicize, push for adoption by data providers Write NISO “Draft Standard for Trial Use” Conduct a series of Web-based seminars to promote and educate (2 offered recently, 1 more to be offered soon) Organize NISO-sponsored stakeholder meeting (late 2006 or early 2007) to gather input from trial use Revise draft into “real standard” Expand scope beyond Journal Report 1 (Database Reports likely next) Seek endorsement by library community to expect SUSHI compliance from content providers –ICOLC considering guideline revisions to specify XML delivery format and endorse SUSHI

SUSHI Summary of Resources Project COUNTER – COUNTER Auditing Requirements and Tests – diting_Requirements_and_Tests.pdfhttp:// diting_Requirements_and_Tests.pdf SUSHI Web Site –