It’s all about: Metadata Standards and Best Practice for E-Resources Improving Discoverability and Accessibility of E-content Electronic Resources: Librarians and Vendors Round Table Issues and standards Background & Workshop: Shi Deng Survey Report: Chengzhi Wang Task Force Draft Plan for Input: Bie-Hwa Ma Thursday, March 27, 2014

Background CEAL Task Force on Metadata Standards and Best Practices for East Asian Electronic Resources  Proposed by Bie-Hwa Ma in 2012 CEAL CTP Annual program in her presentation Strengthening the Chinese Electronic Resources Supply Chain with Standards and Best PracticesStrengthening the Chinese Electronic Resources Supply Chain with Standards and Best Practices  More groundwork was done by Bie-Hwa Ma to contact CTP and National group leaders  CEAL Task Force was formed under CEAL Executive Board in Nov  Task Force Charges:  Investigates the best practices, address the issues  Promotes compliance with well-established metadata standards and best practices  Liaison with national and international working groups  Organize training workshops and educational programs

Workshop : The Start of ERMB Work  “Workshop on Electronic Resources Standards and Best Practices”: held on Tuesday, March 25, 2014  Participant Demographics  Covered Topics  KBART, OpenURL, DOI, and IOTA  Member presentation of CJK E-resources metadata and presentation problems that cause access and discovery issues  PIE-J, ISSN, ISNI, and ORCID  Survey results on vendor and librarian awareness of the E- resources standards and best practices  Partial Workshop Evaluation

Survey: Towards Better Understanding of Issues & Standards  Survey Report:  Survey Goal  Participant Demographics  Preliminary Results in Some Major Aspects:  Survey demographics  Awareness of standards and best practices  Compliance of standards and best practices  Challenging issues that affect compliance  Selected comments

Survey: Goal  Environmental Scan: Survey as a Systematic Way to Get Empirical Data  Preliminary Understanding of the Level of Awareness  Where Are The Awareness Gaps of/between Librarians And Vendors, and How to Bridge Them  Improving Understanding, Expanding Knowledge, Enhancing Skills, Determining Areas/Topics to Work on

Survey Demographics: 73 Participants of Library Survey Region\LibraryARLARL, SLCLNL, SpLOtherPLSLTotal Australia11 Europe11 HK819 Japan10111 Korea11 Singapore11 Taiwan63110 U.S Mainland China Total

Survey Demographics: Library Survey Position Library director/head 1318% Librarian5373% Non-librarian series professional (curator, archivist, etc.) 00% Support staff68% Other11%

Library Survey: Languages of Resources Primarily Managed/Served Chinese4930% Japanese3019% Korean1610% English5635% Tibetan32% Manchu32% Mongolian21% Other32%

Survey Demographics: 22 Participants of Vendors Survey Publisher1026% Vendor/Provider/Aggregator1847% Platform provider718% Identifier registry provider (e.g., DOI registration agency)25% Other13% Mainland China314% Taiwan523% Japan732% Korea627% North America15% 0-5 years627% 6-10 years418% years627% 16+ years627%

Survey Demographics: Library Survey & Vendor Survey Vendors/Publishers Library Staff

Awareness of E-Resources Standards & Best Practices: Library and Vendors Are you aware that there are established national and international standards and best practices for describing electronic resources (or for providing bibliographic data)? 11 Vendors/Publishers Library Staff

Compliance of Standards & Best Practices: Currently Follow & Interested in Following Marc 21815%OpenURL916% Other classfication713%DOI814% OpenURL611%Marc 21712% ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers611%ISSN, ISBN, ISRC, or other publication identifiers611% PIE-J59%KBART47% KBART47%PIE-J35% DOI47%Other subject headings35% LCSH35%Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)35% Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC)35%AACR224% AACR224%RDA24% RDA24%LCSH24% ONIX24%LC Classification24% ONIX-PL12%Other classification24% Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)12% Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.) 24% Other12%ONIX12% PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource00%Name authority headings (VIAF, LCNAF, etc.)12% Other subject headings00%PCC guidelines, CSR, BSR, P-N E-Resource00% LC Classification00%ONIX-PL00% Creator/contributor identifiers (ISNI, ORCID, etc.)00%Other00%

Reasons Why Vendors not Complying with Standards & Best Practices We will consider complying with the standards for the future resources/databases, but not for the existing ones as it is too time consuming and costly to change what we have designed 621% Such metadata do not accommodate the needs of CJK resources/scripts 518% Complying with the standards increases the product cost in human resource, facilities of hardware and software, etc. 518% Such metadata do not necessarily eliminate problems414% Unawareness of the standards311% Lack metadata expertise to provide certain metadata311% Standards are too complicated to understand14% Other14%

Selected Survey Comments: Expectations  Librarian: Come up with a set of realistic and useful metadata standards suitable for East Asian languages and work with vendors for them to learn and implement the standards. Judging by the difficulty of enforcing full standards, it might be necessary to draft a set of “basic” or “minimal” requirements in addition to the full standards.  Librarian: I hope there is a strong external pressure on Japanese publishers and libraries because I feel that there are many problems which cannot be solved if one has not been evolved like the creatures in the Galapagos Islands.  Librarian: It will be nice if the TF can go over details and examples to help me actually take the survey if you are considering any follow-up survey. I need to (have) more basic and beginner level information about metadata standard and practices.

Selected Survey Comments: Expectations  Support staff: Metadata for Display: simple descriptive, allowing contents in CJK. Metadata for Managing Records: Technical requirements and Preservation Information.  Librarian: Most Japanese vendors have not yet been able to respond to the situation, and that creates many challenges.  Librarian: With the strong support of the CEAL Task Force on Metadata Standards and Best Practices, more metadata standards for East Asian Electronic Resources will be promoted and applied. Thank you very much for your great efforts and hard work!

Selected Survey Comments: Further Explanations  Librarian: Electronic resources are mostly managed by our main library. As a result, some of my answers related to vendors' services might not reflect the complete picture.  Librarian: This survey made me realize what I need to start thinking about in terms of metadata availability and management, and how little I know about what's been available for some resources I acquire. It was little too technical for me at this point. I couldn't really answer any of above questions for J and K resources. And I am too fortunate to have e-resource and acquisitions colleagues to take care of metadata issues for English resources on Japan and Korea. So I wasn't able to provide good answer for English resources, either. I also found it kind of confusing not to be able to focus on one language if I were to provide the answer. Because of my vague understanding about metadata practice, I sometimes wasn't able to distinguish differences between several questions. I definitely need to learn more about the topic. So the survey questions will be useful to start learning about it. Thank you very much for your efforts and energy to create this comprehensive survey.

Draft Plan To be finalized with your input! What the Task Force Plans to Do  Sets up communication channels  Creates cheat sheets of Standards and Best Practices  Gathers comments in response to calls for reviewing standards or best practices  Holds CJK language Webinars on specific standards and best practices  Pre-conference Workshops  Information HUB at CEAL ERMB Task Force Website  Promotes Collaboration

Possible 1-year Program  A preconference workshop on certain e-resources metadata standards and best practices (MSBPs)  CJK Webinar for those MSBPs  Cheat sheets/checklists for those MSBPs  Send comments related to CJK issues for new or revised E-R MSBPs

 Opportunities for Communication and Collaboration  8/22 vendors knew and 9/22 would like to learn about E-Resources standards  Although not currently compliant with standards, many vendors are interested in following them  Most vendors think it more feasible to comply with the standards and best practices in the future products, but not for the established databases  Let’s continue the communication and collaboration to achieve the Win-Win-Win Outcome for vendors/publishers, librarians, and ultimately, for our users Communication & Collaboration => Win-Win-Win Outcome

The Outcome and Our Prizes Compliance with Standards and Best Practices > Resolutions for Most Access/Discovery Issues > Usage Increase > Renewal and Better Sale

Request for Next Step for Roundtable One or more continued CEAL-sponsored platform for communication among librarians, publishers, and vendors

Thank You! Chengzhi Wang Bie-Hwa Ma Shi Deng