E-Resource Management Systems and Standards: An Invitation to Work in Progress NISO/DLF Workshop on Standards for Electronic Resource Management May 10, 2002 Tim Jewell UW Libraries Collection Management Services
Goals Describe e-resource system functions and data elements Begin to answer question: Are standards in this area practical and achievable? If so, what functions and elements should be included? how can they be developed beyond the work done so far?
Broad Context Demand for “24x7” access high “Google-ization” E-resource budget shares continue to grow (mostly digital environment in 5 years?) E-resources are complex To describe To fund and acquire To support and manage
Trends in Local Practice Wide staff involvement in selection & support Tracking and presenting licensing terms Establishment of escalation/ triage paths Provision of user support information Integration of instructional information 24 x 7 reference Planned/cyclic product reviews prior to renewal Systematic reporting of usage to staff Development of e-resource support systems
E-resource Management Systems and Initiatives California Digital Library Colorado Alliance (Gold Rush) Griffith University (Australia) Harvard Johns Hopkins (HERMES) MIT (VERA) Michigan Minnesota Notre Dame Penn State (ERLIC) Stanford Texas (License Tracker) UCLA Virginia Yale
E-resource Management Demos MIT (VERA) MIT Penn State (ERLIC) Penn State Yale Yale Texas (License Tracker) Texas Johns Hopkins (HERMES) Johns Hopkins UCLA Colorado Alliance (Gold Rush)Gold Rush
Evolution of the “E-resource Metadata Project” Meeting presentations and discussions ALCTS Big Heads (Midwinter and Annual 2001) DLF Spring Forum, 2001 Metadata Group Meeting, Midwinter 2002 “Web Hub” ( Hub Listserv System Comparison Spreadsheet Local project documents
Metadata Project Goals Support license compliance Facilitate ongoing management and support of e-resources Interoperate with local systems and requirements Flexibility/adaptability to changing technologies Minimize data entry redundancy
Metadata Project: areas not yet addressed Financial/transaction details Consortial relationships Selection and licensing process
Metadata Project Plan Develop and Register XML schema Functions Data Elements Definitions Structures Consider relationships to other standards and schemas
Do Standards Make Sense? Advantages Jump start local development (prevent “reinventing the wheel”) Data sharing(“OCLC cataloging model”) Libraries Serials vendors and service companies Publishers Future portability Focus vendor attention
Do Standards Make Sense? Challenges Too early? (needs may change) Inhibit innovation? Can a useful but flexible and extensible standard be defined? Loss of competitive advantage? Accelerate negative licensing practices? Fair use-hostile license models UCITA
Pragmatic Problems and Issues IOLS vendors may provide “modules” in time, but libraries feel urgent need for short-term fixes Previous/ongoing investments in systems Major changes to longstanding record- keeping practices probably undesirable Multiple data streams need to be brought together
Collection A E-version Publication Collection B E-version Publication P-title License Transaction Access/Admin. License Transaction Access/Admin.
Collection Selection Library/Purchaser Roles Provider/Seller Roles License Transaction Access/Admin. Licensor Vendor Provider Licensee Purchaser
Description Collection Level Title Publisher “Etc.” Title Level Title ISSN Date Coverage Embargo Period? Completeness Format “Etc.”
License Terms Authorized Users Permitted Uses ILL E-Reserves Course Packs Notify users of terms? Enforcement requirements Cancellation restrictions Law and Venue “Etc.”
Transaction Details Price Payment Date Renewal Date Internal Budgeting Details Fund A Fund B Fund C
Access and Administration URLS IP ranges Passwords Access Administration Usage Statistics Technical Contacts Trouble History