1. E-Resource Management: the Quest for Systems and Standards
Access 2003
Vancouver, BC
October 2, 2003
Tim Jewell (University of Washington)

2. Talk Outline 1. Background and E-Resource Management Functions
2. The DLF E-Resource Management Initiative
3. Impact, Challenges, and Next Steps
4. Questions and Comments

3. 1. Background and ERM Functions

4. Context for E-resource Mgmt.
High Demand for “24x7” access
“Google-ization”
E-resource budget shares continue to grow
(mostly digital environment in 5 years?)
E-resources are complex (to describe, fund, and support)
Budget issues driving shift to e-only journal access
Impact of Licensing

5. Common Licensing Issues
Negotiation (complexity, time, etc.)
License terms supplant Copyright Law and Fair Use to determine:
Authorized users
Authorized use
Need for “good faith” efforts to make users and staff aware of terms and live within them

6. E-resource tasks not supported by current library systems
Loading “aggregator” holdings information
License term negotiation, tracking, and communication processes
Wide staff involvement in selection & support
Problem tracking
Escalation/ triage paths
Planned, cyclical product reviews
Systematic usage reporting
Result: creation of many separate documents and/or applications

7. Tracking Development Work : the “Web Hub”
Adam Chandler (Cornell) and Tim Jewell
Work begun for earlier DLF study
Project descriptions and contacts
Local documents
Listserv (

8. E-Resource Management Systems and Initiatives
California Digital Library
Colorado Alliance (Gold Rush)
Columbia
Griffith University (Australia)
Harvard
Johns Hopkins (HERMES)
MIT (VERA)
Michigan
Minnesota
Notre Dame
Penn State (ERLIC)
Stanford
Texas (License Tracker)
Tri-College Consortium (Haverford, Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore)
UCLA
University of Georgia
University of Washington (w/III)
Virginia
Willamette University
Yale

9. Sample E-resource Management Systems: Public Displays

10. Yale E-resource presentation 1

11. Yale E-resource presentation 2

12. Yale License Information 1

13. Yale License Information 2

14. MIT (Vera) (based on Nicole Hennig’s 2002 Serials Librarian article)
Functions and features
Generate public web pages
Databases and E-journals
Subject and alpha lists
Describe availability by location
Manage and generate urls
Provide access to license info.
Provide status and user support info.

15. MIT (Vera) 1

16. MIT (Vera) 2

17. MIT (Vera) 3

18. MIT (Vera) 4

19. Sample E-resource Management Systems: Staff Forms and Functions

20. Johns Hopkins (HERMES) (based on Cyzyk & Robertson’s 2003 ITAL article)
Selected Requirements
Full workflow to support selection & implementation
Dynamic generation of public web pages, etc.
Automatic staff renewal notification, etc.
Link management
Access/Use restrictions by user group
Interoperability

21. Johns Hopkins: (HERMES)
Design
Modules
Authorization, Selection, Acquisition, Catalog, Library Computing, Reports, “Scheduled notifications”
Defined “roles”
Public, selector, “super-selector”, various types of administrators
“Production” by Late Fall, 2003?
SQL and Cold Fusion based, to be available on Open Source basis

22. UCLA Resource Screen

23. UCLA Bibliographic Details Screen

24. UCLA Descriptors Screen

25. UCLA Licensing Screen

26. UCLA Troubleshooting Screen

27. 2. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative
September 2002+

28. NISO/DLF Workshop Steering Group:
Tim Jewell (University of Washington)
Ivy Anderson (Harvard)
Adam Chandler (Cornell)
Sharon Farb (UCLA)
Angela Riggio (UCLA)
Kimberly Parker (Yale)
Nathan Robertson (Johns Hopkins)
became the “ERMI Steering Group”

29. ERMI Goals Describe architectures needed
Establish lists of elements and definitions
Write and publish XML Schemas/DTD’s
Promote best practices and standards for data interchange

30. Librarian Reactor Panel (17 members)
Bob Alan (Penn State)
Angela Carreno (NYU)
Trisha Davis (Ohio State)
Ellen Duranceau (MIT)
Christa Easton (Stanford)
Laine Farley (CDL)
Diane Grover (Washington)
Nancy Hoebelheinreich (Stanford)
Norm Medeiros (Haverford)
Linda Miller (LC)
Jim Mouw (Chicago)
Andrew Pace (NCSU)
Carole Pilkinton (Notre Dame)
Ronda Rowe (Texas)
Jim Stemper (Minnesota)
Paula Watson (Illinois)
Robin Wendler (Harvard)

31. Vendor Reactor Panel (12 Members)
Tina Feick (SWETS Blackwell)
Ted Fons (Innovative Interfaces)
David Fritsch (TDNet)
Kathy Klemperer (Harrassowitz)
George Machovec (Colorado Alliance)
Mark Needleman (SIRSI)
Oliver Pesch (EBSCO)
Chris Pierard (Serials Solutions)
Kathleen Quinton (OCLC)
Sara Randall (Endeavor)
Ed Riding (Dynix)
Jenny Walker (ExLibris)

32. Project “Deliverables”
Problem Definition/Road Map
Functional Specifications
Workflow Diagram
Entity Relationship Diagram
Data Elements and Definitions
Entities and Elements (word document)
Data Dictionary (spreadsheet format)
XML Schema

33. Functional Requirements Outline
Introduction/Goals
Guiding Principles
Functional Requirements (42 main points)
General (3)
Resource Discovery (7)
Bibliographic Management (2)
Access Management (5)
Staff Requirements (25)
Selection and evaluation processes (9)
Resource administration and management (11)
Business functions (5)

34. Functional Specs: Guiding Principles
Integrated, non-duplicating management and access environment.
Global updating, flexible addition of fields, ability to hide fields and records
Single point of maintenance for each data element.
Interoperation and/or dynamic sharing data with existing OPACs, web portals, library management systems, and link resolution services.

35. Functional Specs (excerpt)
27. Store license rights and terms for reference, reporting, and control of services
27.1 For services including but not limited to ILL, reserves, distance education, course web sites, and course packs:
Identify whether a given title may be used for the service and under what conditions
Generate reports of all materials that may or may not be used for the service with notes about conditions

36. Workflow Diagram

37. Workflow Diagram Summary
Trials
Initial Review (3 “parallel processes”)
License
Technical Feasibility
Business Issues
Implementation
Routine Maintenance/Renewal

38. Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD)

39. Entities Summary 20 Main Entities Examples: Electronic Resource
Acquisition
Access Information
Administrative Information
Terms (includes 4 “groups”)
Terms of Use
Restrictions
Perpetual Rights
Mutual Obligations, Rights

40. Entities and Elements

41. 3. Impact, Challenges, and Next Steps

42. Impacts Development work RFP’s using DLF work Johns Hopkins
Other libraries beginning or refining systems
Colorado Alliance (“Gold Rush”)
Innovative Interfaces ERM module
ExLibris (1st phase scheduled for summer 04 release)
Other vendors likely to follow
RFP’s using DLF work

43. Challenges: navigating the standards landscape 1
Description
NISO/EDItEUR Joint Working Party
Licensing
Can “legal subtleties” be encoded?
Can we share license descriptions?
“Players”: publishers, vendors, libraries
Political ramifications
Legal issues: XML expression of digital rights
Can we do this in a standardized way?
Can it be done for “local” e-collections?

44. Challenges: navigating the standards landscape 2
Authentication
Impact of Shibboleth, etc.
More “granular” terms by user status?
Usage Data
Fit with COUNTER, ARL emetrics?
Administration, Access, and Support
Volatility of data requirements
Portability to future ERM’s
Interoperability of “stand-alone” ERM’s

45. Next Steps Complete deliverables (Nov. 2003)
Presentation to DLF Fall Forum (Nov.)
Print publication (Winter 2004)
Post-publication “futures”
Open discussion/criticism/refinement
Second “NISO/DLF Pre-standardization Workshop” in spring 2004?
New standards group needed?

46. 4. Questions and Comments

47. e-ILL Management Wish List
Stable, standardized definitions
Clear, brief “rights” summary by journal
Accurate “rights” summary by journal
Clear description of local policy by title
Practical data structure
Clear, usable interfaces for input, editing, display

48. e-ILL encoding 1: DLF Numerous data elements
12+ for Terms of Use
5 of these are for ILL
Predefined values for 4 of ILL elements
Possible added coding for local policies as needed?

49. e-ILL encoding 2: Innovative/UW
Limit of 4 Fields
Personal Use
Instructional Use
ILL
Other
Flexible definition of “values”
select from standard choices, edit as needed.
Mix of license description and local policy