Presentation on theme: "Electronic Resource Management An Overview of Standards."— Presentation transcript:
Electronic Resource Management An Overview of Standards
Presenters Mary Bailey, Serials & Electronic Resource Librarian, Kansas State University Dalene Hawthorne, Head of Systems & Technical Services, ESU Anne Liebst, Assistant Director for Technical Services, Washburn University
Agenda Why are standards important? Brief history of electronic resources Electronic Resources Management Initiative Managing License Information Managing journal article versions Open URL COUNTER SUSHI
Electronic Resource Management: An Overview of Standards Anne Liebst, Washburn University Tri-Conference 2007 April 10, 2007
What I really mean is… …standards are all over the place MARC MetadataXML Z39.50 RFID AACR2 OpenAccess (Just to name a few!)
And now we are being told to throw out the standards! Roy Tennant – MARC must die Library Journal; 10/15/2002, Vol. 127 Issue 17, p26 Roy Tennant – Will RDA be DOA? Library Journal; 03/15/2007, Vol. 132 Issue 4, p
But wait! Wiley just bought Blackwells CSA just bought ProQuest Springer is about to buy Taylor & Francis …and the list goes on and on
So standards become important for electronic materials: To standardize terminology and definitions, methods of data collection and methods of analyzing the data with the aim of comparing results and of aggregating results on a regional, national, or even international level.
So standards become important for electronic materials: For the electronic collection; the online catalog; the librarys web site; electronic document delivery; online reference services; user training on electronic services; and internet access. The main problem is how to count usage. And who sets the standards?
National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Non-profit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Identifies, develops, maintains, and publishes technical standards to manage information in our changing and ever-more digital environment. NISO standards apply both traditional and new technologies to the full range of information-related needs, including retrieval, re- purposing, storage, metadata, and preservation. Founded in 1939, incorporated in 1989. Represents U.S. in the International Standardization Organization (ISO).
Pre-Standards Research Helps NISO map the business and technology landscape where its standards must operate. A pre-standards workshop focused on Digital Rights Expression. An exploratory workgroup on RFID examined the need for standards to support use in the library and book industries.
Active Standards Development NISO charters groups to create standards and best practices. The Metasearch Initiative produced a guideline, two draft standards and a best practices document. The Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) will help librarians track usage of online content. A License Expression Working Group will develop a single standard for the exchange of license information between publishers and libraries. The Web Services and Practices Working Group will produce best practices and interoperability mechanisms documents.
Draft Standards in Trial Use Enable implementers to test the product. Collection Description Specification and the Information Retrieval Service Description Specification work together to make it easier to find and use resources from the hidden Web.
Standards Several Z39 Standards went to ballot; others earned approval from ANSI. Data DictionaryTechnical Metadata for Digital Still Images The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services Bibliographic References Scientific and Technical ReportsPreparation, Presentation and Preservation Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies Information Services and Use: Metrics and Standards for Libraries and Information
Implementation Maintenance Agencies, like ALA, assist in the dissemination of standards and provide information on changes. All standards are reviewed on a regular basis at least five years after approval and revised as the information environment changes.
Example ANSI/NISO Z39.50 – 2003 Information Retrieval : Application Service Definition & Protocol Specification Abstract: This standard defines a client/server based service and protocol for Information Retrieval. It specifies procedures and formats for a client to search a database provided by a server, retrieve database records, and perform related information retrieval functions. The protocol addresses communication between information retrieval applications at the the client and server; it does not address interaction between the client and the end-user. Maintenance Agency: Library of Congress
In Development NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) United Kingdoms Counting Online Usage of Electronic Resources (COUNTER)
Brief History of E-Resources Dalene Hawthorne Head of Systems and Technical Services Emporia State University KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007 Topeka, Kansas
Brief History Lesson It all started with MARC in the mid-1960s Led by the Library of Congress Pilot project ended in 1967 General distribution began in 1969 Laid the foundation for resource sharing
Databases in the 1960s First bibliographic databases were created at about the same time Scientific and government information Driven by concerns about scholarly communication National Science Foundations Office of Science Information Service legally charged facilitating access First Dialog database created in 1966
The 70s and 80s WorldCat was introduced in 1971 by OCLC First online catalogs were made available by the mid 1970s, but many libraries brought theirs up in the 1980s CD-ROM technology changed databases in the mid 1980s User friendly interfaces Juke boxes and networks Full-text No per-search charges License agreements Online databases were still heavily in use, but searches were usually mediated by a librarian
The Web The Web changed everything User-friendly interfaces Hypertext linking Easily accessible from outside the library Different types of resources More full text Search engines Link resolvers Statistics Need for new standards
Electronic Resource Management Systems Many electronic resources to manage Until recently, there werent tools available Libraries used home-grown databases, spreadsheets, file folders, e-mail file folders
MIT Libraries Developed VERA in FileMaker Pro Manages acquisitions metadata Provides access to e-resources through system-generated lists and searching capabilities Use SFX as their link resolver
Emporia State University Serials Solutions A-Z List & MARC records EBSCOHost EJS Registration Tracker Databases stored in content management system developed by the university webmaster License Review Creating bibliographic records Scanning licenses into Millennium Media and linking to bib records Limiting access by creating a passworded electronic reserve course Planning for an ERM system Implementing Innovatives WebBridge OpenURL link resolver
Electronic Resource Management Initiative – Phase I Digital Library Federation (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative began fall 2002 and produced Functional Requirements Workflow Diagrams Data Dictionary Entity Relationship Diagram Data Structure Final Report – June 2005
Electronic Resource Management Initiative – Phase II Data Standards License Expression Usage Data Training in License Term Mapping
Managing Licensing Information Mary Bailey Serials & Electronic Resource Librarian Kansas State University Libraries KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007 Topeka, Kansas
DLF ERM Initiative Report August 2004 Project to develop common specifications and tools for management of license agreements http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/
ERMI License Terms Citation requirement details Display Digital copy Print copy Scholarly sharing Distance education ILL print or fax Ill Electronic Fair use clause indicator Course Reserve print Course Reserve electronic/ Cached copy Electronic link permission Course Pack print Course Pack electronic Remote access Walk-in users Authorized user groups Authorized locations
License Expression Working Group NISO, DLF, EDItEUR and PLS were charged to develop a single standard for the exchange of license information between publishers and libraries Monitor and make recommendations regarding the further development of standards relating to electronic resources and license expression Actively engage in the development of the ONIX license messaging specification http://www.niso.org/committees/License_expression/LicenseEx_comm.html
ONIX for Licensing Terms Electronic communication of usage terms between publishers and libraries ONIX Publisher License format (ONIX-PL) Most recent draft March 2, 2007 Goal of first stable version by June 2007
Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules & ERMs White paper January 17, 2007 Prepared by subcommittee of DLF ERM initiative Investigation to determine the feasibility of propagating financial data across platforms with same or different ERMs and ILS http://www.haverford.edu/library/DLF_ERMS_w hite_paper.pdf
Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) Working group Charge – develop recommended practices to sell e-resources without licenses if they feel their perception of risk has been adequately addressed by current law and developing norms of behavior http://www.niso.org/committees/SERU
SERU –How will it work Forego license – rely on shared understanding Orders placed through vendors such as serial agents or consortia SERU will be posted on NISO website NISO registry for publishers and libraries FAQ on the NISO SERU website
Managing Journal Article Versions Mary Bailey Serials & Electronic Resource Librarian Kansas State University Libraries KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007 Topeka, Kansas
Print Journal Easy to know what you had Dated, volume and issue numbers Specific journal – tangible- physical piece Didnt change
Online Journal Published version Enhanced version Corrected version Self Archived Draft, pre-print, post-print Different versions submitted to multiple journals What is the definitive version?
Publishers discussion 2000 article in Learned Publishing, Defining and Certifying Electronic Publication in Science - Proposed that the only meaningful version was the Definitive version 2005 Sally Morris CEO of ALPSP proposed a working group of NISO/ALPSP members to explore issues about version and standard terminology
Working Groups goals Determine a set of use cases to work from Define a set of terms that all can use
WG Recommendations (12/16/06) Terms and definitions for journal article versions Explanation of project background Set of use cases Comments received Propose that terms be disseminated by NISO/ASPSP http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/Jo urnal_Ver_comm.html
Proposed Terms and Definitions Authors original Accepted manuscript Proof Version of record Corrected version of record Enhanced version of record
Authors original Version considered by author to be of sufficient quality to be submitted for review by a second party. Can be prior to formal review for publication. Author accepts full responsibility for article. Content and layout set by author
Accepted Manuscript Version has been accepted for publication in a journal Publisher takes responsibility for article Content and layout as submitted by author
Proof Version created as part of the publication process Includes copy-edited manuscript, galley proofs, page proof and revised proofs. Content has been changed, layout is now publishers
Version of record Version made available by any organization acting as publisher Includes early release articles
Corrected version of record Version of record in which errors in the version of record have been corrected. Can be publishers, authors, or processing errors
Enhanced version of record Version of record that has been updated or enhanced by the provision of supplementary material
Last points Date stamps, version numbers and metadata records could be used to differentiate versions that may have several iterations. Relationships need to be codified though the retrospective act of including an unambiguous reference or link within the metadata of a previous version to the version of record.
Value-adding process relationships (dissemination/publishing family) 1.Authors Original 2. Accepted Manuscript 3. Proof 4. Version of Record 5. Corrected or Enhanced Version of Record Conceptual provenance relationships (citation family) Working papers Blog entry Tech. Report Presentation
Assumptions – In todays world: Any of the content objects (versions) in the previous graphic can be public Any of the versions can reside in identical form in multiple places All of these versions should have metadata that links it to the related objects Contents objects in the conceptual family can become (move to) dissemination publishing objects
NISO/ALPSP Working Group The Working Groups goal is to have a final draft available for public review in early 2007.
Sources NISO/SLPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal Articles http://www.niso.org/committees/Journal_version/JournalVer_comm. html Peter McCracken. Managing Journal Article Versions Across the Lifecycle. Presented at the NISO Managing Electronic Collections Solutions Forum. Retrieved October 27, 2006 from http://www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/Collections-06- Agenda.html Todd Carpenter. Standards Column – Toward a Terminology of Journal Article Versions. Against the Grain 18, no. 6: 79-80
OpenURL Mary Bailey Serials & Electronic Resource Librarian Kansas State University Libraries KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007 Topeka, Kansas
What is OpenURL? Type of URL containing resource metadata – primarily used by libraries Implemented by information providers by dynamically inserting an appropriate base URL into web pages sent to an authenticated user
Base URL in Version 0.1 Consists of institutional link servers address and a query string http://pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi? Genre=book&isbn=0836218310& title=The+Far+Side+Gallery+3
OpenURL Version 1.0 http://pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi?url_ver=Z39.8 8- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:book&rft. isbn=0836218310&rft.btitle=The+Far+Side +Gallery+3 Most database vendors use one of these or a hybrid of the two, but you can expect to see the older version disappear
OpenURL Standards Allows the user to access the appropriate copy with fewer clicks by: Packaging metadata and identifiers describing the information object and: Sending this package to a link-resolution server or resolver
Link Resolver Knowledge Base Is the brain Database of all the holdings in a collection Contains journal coverage Embargos Tracks movement of titles between publishers
Knowledge Base Extended Services Check local holdings for other formats (print, microform, etc.) Link to and populate ILL form on the OPAC Link to book reviews or articles that cite the current resource
Branding Link resolvers allow a library to create branding On your own library pages Match on Publishers databases
OpenURL standards 1.0 What our users expect Not quite one click, but certainly closer Eliminates frustration of non-authorization Link resolvers provide the added value of extended services
Sources Ann Apps and Ross MacIntyre. Why OpenURL? D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 5. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2007 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may06/apps/05apps.html Open URL Framework for Context –Sensitive Services http://www.niso.org/committees/committee_ax.htm Ross Singer. Helping You Buy: Link Resolver Tools. Computers in Libraries 26, no. 2:15-23 Wikipedia, OpenURL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenURL
Electronic Resource Management: COUNTER and SUSHI Anne Liebst, Washburn University Tri-Conference 2007 April 10, 2007
Librarians need meaningful statistics from electronic databases/journals: Assess the value of different online products/services; Make better-informed purchasing decisions; Plan infrastructure and allocation of resources; Support internal marketing and promotion of library services.
Vendors require online usage statistics: Experiment with new pricing models; New product development; Plan infrastructure, improve website design and navigation; Obtain improved market analysis and demographics.
New ways to answer classic questions: Which titles should be in our collections? Which titles should we cancel? Which titles should we add? Is this collection a good value?
What is COUNTER? Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources; Located in the United Kingdom; Formally launched in March 2002; Leading initiative in the field; Objective is to develop an agreed upon international Codes of Practice governing the recording and exchange of online usage data; http://www.projectcounter.org
Usage reports: Because usage records are generated from one platform to another; COUNTER compliance will be a guiding principle for usage that should be reported; Encourages the use of standards for data collection by ERM systems.
Usage Reports: Full-text article requests by month and journal title; Turnaways by month and journal title; Number of item requests by month, journal title and page type; Total searches and sessions by month and database; Total searches, sessions and full-text requests by month and database; Turnaways by month and database; Searches and sessions by month and service.
What is SUSHI? Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative; Protocol and proposed standard that can be used by ERM and other systems to automate the transport of COUNTER formatted usage statistics; Standard client/server web services SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) request/response for the XML version of the COUNTER report.
Simply put: It is the Z39.93 protocol that defines an automated request and response model for the harvesting of electronic resource usage data utilizing a web services framework that can replace the user-mediated collection of usage data reports; Designed to work with Project COUNTER reports, the protocol is also extensible to other types of usage reports.
What are the benefits? It automates a tedious and repetitive process – current practice calls for library staff to go to each individual publishers website and retrieve statistical data; In some cases it is COUNTER compliant and in other cases it is not; SUSHI automates the process and, by default, causes the publisher to put usage data into a standard format.
What are the benefits? The protocol is designed to be one report at a time, so requesting libraries simply make a separate request for each report needed; Results can be aggregated by the requesting library using their ERM system; Set a time and a day and your reports are automated; You do not need an ERM system to use SUSHI, any software that can initiate a web service that can use the SUSHI WSDL and Schema will work.
Test it out at: http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html
Thank you! Mary Bailey, Kansas State University Dalene Hawthorne, Emporia State University Anne Liebst, Washburn University