Project COUNTER and SUSHI: An Overview Oliver Pesch, EBSCO Information Services NFAIS Forum: Online Usage Statistics: Current Status and Future Directions Philadelphia, PA October 27, 2006

Overview Usage statistics Project COUNTER SUSHI The Future Background & overview of the need Project COUNTER Purpose Accomplishments Acceptance SUSHI The concept The technology Accomplishments and timeline The Future

Usage Statistics: The need Expanding scope of E-resources Usage seen as a measurement of value Cost per use for collection management Search counts to measure value of databases Use counts to help measure “impact” of faculty research The need to collect usage data from the growing list of content providers

Usage Statistics: The problems Inconsistencies in counting Terminology (what is a download) What and when to count Inconsistencies in format Each content provider has their own format Different labels, columns and rows Inconsistencies in delivery Email, versus phone request, versus FTP Online versus paper Amount of history offered Timeliness

Lead in the standardization of usage Non-profit organization includes librarians, publishers and aggregators Lead in the standardization of usage How use is counted How use is reported “Consistent, credible, comparable” http://www.projectcounter.org/ COUNTER, or “Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources” Formed in 2002, Project COUNTER is a non-profit organization that was formed with the participation of publishers, librarians and aggregators. This collaboration was key for the success of this group. While many publishers were providing usage statistics for their product for years, they were counting different things in different ways. Project COUNTER has lead in the standardization of the usage of electronic resources and focuses on how things are counted and how they are reported. The ultimate goal for this standardization can be summed up in three Cs: Usage reports should be consistent, they should be credible, and they should be comparable across products. I’ll get into examples in the next few minutes and then conclude with some caveats.

COUNTER Code of Practice Code of Practice first released Jan 2003 Release 2 released Jan 2006 Code of Practice Addresses: Terminology Layout and format of reports Processing of usage data Delivery of reports http://www.projectcounter.org/code_practice.html The first Code of Practice was released in January 2003 and has been adopted by the major publishers and a lot of the smaller ones. As we learned what makes a useful report and better understand some of our mistakes, the reports were modified and COUNTER 2 was released in Jan 2006. All publishers need to apply for COUNTER 2 compliancy or be removed from the compliancy list. The revised code of practice addresses some vague terminology, and more rigorously defines the layout and format of the reports, the processing of usage data, and the delivery of reports. I’ll show some examples in just a minute.

COUNTER Usage Reports Journal Reports: Database Reports: JR1: Full Text Article Requests by Month and Journal JR2: Turnaways by Month and Journal Database Reports: DB1: Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Database DB2: Turnaways by Month and Database DB3: Searches and Sessions by Month and Service Books and Reference Works: Title Requests, Section Requests, Searches and Turnaways COUNTER addresses the use of Journals, Databases, and more recently, the use of books and reference works. The standard for book use was just released in March. All of these reports focus on providing monthly statistics. These reports apply to individual subscribing institutions as well as consortia. In terms of the latter, a publisher must provide a consortial-level report plus individual institutional reports.

Explicit report layout – “consistent” The “consistency” goal is achieved by creating very explicit standards for how reports are presented. Not much is left to interpretation or imagination in the latest COUNTER release. All cells in the report are defined and described so there is no question on what goes into them. The main impetus for this change was the development of electronic management systems for libraries that could ingest these reports.

Journal Report 1: Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal Here is an example of a Journal Report. I have highlighted the required metadata in the top left-hand corner that needs to preceed the report. This includes when the report was run. You will notice that there is a distinction between the Publisher and the Platform. This is not a concern for most publishers, but is a concern for an aggregator like EBSCO Host or ProQuest. Services like HighWire, Ingenta and Metapress also host multiple publishers on a single platform. The other distinction is that yearly totals come in three flavors: A simple yearly total for all fulltext requests, and two additional columns that divide up HTML requests from PDF requests. The rationale for this was that some publishers provide multiple format versions of the same article and that readers tend to browse an HTML version before downloading the PDF version of the same article. Without breaking these two formats down, it would have been difficult to compare the usage of a publisher that provided both versions with another that provided only say PDF.

“Credible” – COUNTER Audit Beginning 2007, an audit must be passed for a vendor’s service to be compliant Conducted by auditor certified accountant or by organization accredited by COUNTER At vendor expense Current compliancy is basically a matter of faith and good will. Librarians (mostly) trust publishers that their usage reports are true and accurate, and if there wasn’t this trust, we would merely ignore the publisher’s reports. On the other hand, any self-reporting system that has enormous financial implications must have safeguards against inaccuracies – accidental or otherwise. Starting next year all COUNTER-compliant vendors must be audited. Exact details about this process can be found at the Project COUNTER website. In this last part of my talk, I’m going to focus on the last “C”, which is that COUNTER reports should be Comparable across publishers.

Usage Statistics: Still some problems COUNTER statistics provides excellent model and rules for usage statistics counting Libraries needed: A more efficient data exchange model Current model is file-by-file spreadsheet download Background query and response model is more efficient and scalable

Usage Data Problems Expanding scope of E-resources Data proliferation (many content providers) COUNTER extremely helpful, but… Lack of standardized “containers” Time consuming to gather, assemble, report Usage consolidation applications help with assembling and reporting, not the gathering Hence, SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative)

SUSHI Objectives Solve the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers. Promote consistency in usage formatting (XML) Automate the process

SUSHI: A brief history The SUSHI Steering Committee Nov. 2004 - Meetings between Cornell & Innovative July 2005 – Cross-Industry Committee forms: Libraries Subscription Agents Content Providers Integrated Library System vendors

SUSHI: A brief history The SUSHI Steering Committee July. 2005 – Industry Committee forms: Cornell University – Adam Chandler Ex Libris – Ted Koppel EBSCO Information Systems – Oliver Pesch Harvard University  California Digital Library – Ivy Anderson Innovative Interfaces – Ted Fons Thompson Scientific – Patricia Brennan University of Washington – Tim Jewell

SUSHI: A brief history Technical Work Fall 2005 – Technical Discussions First tests – Innovative and EBSCO & Swets Early 2006 – Live Harvests University of Nebraska – Lincoln & EBSCO Washington State Univ. & Project Euclid Spring 2006 – Migration to NISO as coordinating body – Steering Committee continues work September 2006 – Draft Standard for Trial Use

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 http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

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 Otto Harrassowitz OCLC Project Euclid Serials Solutions SirsiDynix

SUSHI The Technology

SUSHI: What it is and Isn’t A web-services model for requesting data Replaces the user’s need to download files from vendor’s website A request for data where the response includes COUNTER data Using COUNTER’s schema What it isn’t A model for counting usage statistics

Web Services: the chosen approach for SUSHI Web services combine the best aspects of component-based development and the Web. Commercially accepted Widely supported (W3C) Secure … but first some definitions NISO has Web Services committee Amazon Thousands of others…

Definitions XML Schema (XSD) A language for describing the structure and constraining the contents of XML documents. (reactivity.com glossary)

Definitions XML Schema (XSD) A language for describing the structure and constraining the contents of XML documents. (reactivity.com glossary)

Definitions Web Services Open, standard (XML, SOAP, etc.) based Web applications that interact with other web applications for the purpose of exchanging data. (lucent.com)

Definitions Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) SOAP is a lightweight XML based protocol used for invoking web services and exchanging structured data and type information on the Web. (oracle.com)

Definitions Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is an XML format published for describing Web services. (wikipedia.org)

Web Services: An example System A provides online information about companies. System B provides real-time stock quotations. Using Web Services, System A can integrate real-time stock quotes into their company data.

System A sends the stock symbol to System B. Internet Online Company Data Real Time Stock Quotes (web service) Stock symbol

System B returns the quote. All of this happens in milliseconds. System A System B Internet Online Company Data Real Time Stock Quotes (web service) Stock symbol Stock quote

“Messages” are formatted in XML, and the protocol used to communicate is SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol). System A System B Internet Online Company Data Real Time Stock Quotes Stock symbol SOAP Stock quote SOAP: SOAP Version 1.2 is a lightweight protocol intended for exchanging structured information in a decentralized, distributed environment. Simple Object Access Protocol. SOAP is a lightweight XML based protocol used for invoking web services and exchanging structured data and type information on the Web. (Oracle) Web Service: Open standard (XML, SOAP, etc.) based Web applications that interact with other web applications for the purpose of exchanging data. (lucent) XML Schema: XML Schema is a language for describing the structure and constraining the contents of XML documents. (reactivity.com glossary)

XML messages for SUSHI Report Request Report Response Requester Customer Reference Report Definition Report Response COUNTER report as payload

SUSHI Architecture The next series of slides graphically show a SUSHI transaction Library system requests a usage report SUSHI client makes the request SUSHI server processes request SUSHI server prepares COUNTER report SUSHI server “packages” and returns response SUSHI client processes COUNTER report

The Library and Content Provider’s systems are both connected to the internet. Library Content Provider Internet

The SUSHI client is software that runs on the library’s server, usually associated with an ERM system. Library Content Provider ERM Internet SUSHI Client

The SUSHI server is software that runs on the Content Provider’s server, and has access to the usage data. Library Content Provider ERM Internet SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) Usage Data

When the ERM system wants a COUNTER report, it sends a request to the SUSHI client, which prepares the request. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet Request SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) Usage Data

The SUSHI request is sent to the Content Provider The SUSHI request is sent to the Content Provider. The request specifies the report and the library the report is for. Library Content Provider ? ERM Request Internet Request SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) Usage Data

The SUSHI server reads the request then processes the usage data. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet Request SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) Usage Data

The SUSHI server creates the requested COUNTER report in XML format. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) COUNTER Usage Data

A response message is prepared according to the SUSHI XML schema. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet Response SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) COUNTER Usage Data

The COUNTER report (XML) is added to the Response as its payload The COUNTER report (XML) is added to the Response as its payload. The response is sent to the client. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet Response SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) COUNTER Usage Data

The COUNTER report (XML) is added to the Response as its payload The COUNTER report (XML) is added to the Response as its payload. The response is sent to the client. Library Content Provider ? ERM Response Internet SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) COUNTER Usage Data

The SUSHI client processes the response and extracts the COUNTER report. Library Content Provider ? ERM Response Internet SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) COUNTER Usage Data

The extracted COUNTER report is passed to the ERM system for further processing. Library Content Provider  ERM COUNTER Internet SUSHI Client SUSHI Server (web service) Usage Data

Report Request: Detailed View <requestor> <customerReference> <reportDefinition>

<requester>

<customerReference>

<reportDefinition>

Report Response: Detailed View <requestor> <customerReference> <reportDefinition> <reports> <journal_report>

Example code for SUSHI client public static void GetReport()     {         ReportRequest request = new ReportRequest();         request.Requestor = new Requestor("11", "Requestor Name", "Name@Company.com");         request.CustomerReference = new CustomerReference(customerId, customer);         ReportDefinitionFilters filters = new ReportDefinitionFilters(new Range(dateStart, dateEnd));         request.ReportDefinition = new ReportDefinition(filters, "Report 1 (J1)");         SushiWsClientProxy.SushiwsPort service = new SushiWsClientProxy.SushiwsPort();         ReportResponse response = service.RetrieveJournal1Report(request);     }

SUSHI is a Web Service which sends an XML Request to a content provider to obtain an XML response containing the usage report. Library Content Provider ? ERM Internet SUSHI Client Request SUSHI Server SOAP Response COUNTER Usage Data

Making it secure Follows Web Services conventions Levels Secure SSL Trusted Server can profile trusted clients Clients must deliver known customer ID Authorization Information providers can introduce customer level authorization

SUSHI: Extendable & adaptable Built for flexibility Current SUSHI standard Handles additional reports Allows for systematic harvesting of usage from multiple institutions Adapts to a variety of security models

COUNTER: Looking Ahead Implementation of the Audit Tuning the COUNTER Code of Practice for Consortia Research the need for new metrics Unique Article Count Research the need for new reports Track usage by date published? Track usage at the item level? Special reports for Consortia?

SUSHI: Looking Ahead Address any issues from trial use of standard Education and awareness Continued cooperation between SUSHI & COUNTER NISO/SUSHI maintains the COUNTER XML Schema Address Additional COUNTER Reports Books and Reference Works Address the needs for Consortia Promote and encourage the up-take of SUSHI!

Summary of Resources Project COUNTER http://www.projectcounter.org COUNTER Auditing Requirements and Tests http://www.projectcounter.org/r2/R2_Appendix_E_Auditing_Requirements_and_Tests.pdf SUSHI Web Site http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html JURO: Journal Usage Report Online http://hkiug.ln.edu.hk/meetings/am2005/presentations/9-juro.ppt#1

Oliver Pesch opesch@ebsco.com Thank you Oliver Pesch opesch@ebsco.com