1. 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 tjewell@u.washington.edu

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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” (http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/)Web Hub  Listserv  System Comparison Spreadsheet  Local project documents

8. 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

9. Metadata Project: areas not yet addressed  Financial/transaction details  Consortial relationships  Selection and licensing process

10. Metadata Project Plan  Develop and Register XML schema  Functions  Data Elements  Definitions  Structures  Consider relationships to other standards and schemas

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Collection A E-version Publication Collection B E-version Publication P-title License Transaction Access/Admin. License Transaction Access/Admin.

15. Collection Selection Library/Purchaser Roles Provider/Seller Roles License Transaction Access/Admin. Licensor Vendor Provider Licensee Purchaser

16. Description Collection Level Title Publisher “Etc.” Title Level Title ISSN Date Coverage Embargo Period? Completeness Format “Etc.”

17. License Terms Authorized Users Permitted Uses ILL E-Reserves Course Packs Notify users of terms? Enforcement requirements Cancellation restrictions Law and Venue “Etc.”

18. Transaction Details Price Payment Date Renewal Date Internal Budgeting Details Fund A Fund B Fund C

19. Access and Administration URLS IP ranges Passwords Access Administration Usage Statistics Technical Contacts Trouble History