390 likes | 489 Views
DLF ERMI Update ALCTS Serials Standards Forum. Tim Jewell University of Washington DLF ERMI Coordinator “Accidental ERM Standards Guy”. A Working Definition for ERMs.
E N D
DLF ERMI UpdateALCTS Serials Standards Forum Tim Jewell University of Washington DLF ERMI Coordinator “Accidental ERM Standards Guy”
A Working Definition for ERMs “Tools for managing the license agreements, related administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of licensed electronic resources.” Ellen Duranceau, Against The Grain, June 2005
ERMI Goals • Formal • Describe architectures needed • Establish lists of elements and definitions • Write and publish XML Schemas/DTD’s • Promote best practices and standards for data interchange • Informal • Promote growth and development of vendor and local ERM systems and services http://www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm
License terms Trial Price Assess need/budget Order, Register Evaluate Catalog User feedback Digital Registry Usage stats Proxy server Review alternatives Gateway Review problems WebBridge Inform users Track problems Troubleshoot Manage changes Provide Training Investigate Evaluate Monitor Provide Access Contact info Provide Support Administer Payment, manage financials Setup contacts Customize interface Holdings management Set up usage statistics
Functionality “Quick Take” • Store and display data not in current systems: • For End Users • Auxiliary descriptive data • Permitted uses (and restrictions) • Availability • Technical and platform-specific issues • For Staff • Detailed License information • Administrative IDs and passwords • Configuration and management information • Usage statistics and training information
The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase II • Data Standards • Data Dictionary revision • Training for License Term Mapping (ARL/DLF collaboration) • License Expression Standards • E-Resource Usage Statistics • Protocol for automated delivery (“SUSHI”) • Statement of functional requirements
1: “MAPPING LICENSE LANGUAGE” Workshops • Trisha Davis and Diane Grover appointed ARL Visiting Program Officers to develop and offer workshops • Offered at 2005 and 2006 ALA Annual, 2006 NASIG • Also to be offered at Charleston Conference 2006, ALA midwinter 2007
License Data Scenarios • Within an ERM/ILS system: • Convey appropriate license restrictions. • Show or hide resources depending on availability to certain groups. • Prompt staff for action • Exchange with consortial partners • License feeds from vendors
License Mapping Workshop Goals • Examine the ERMI “subset” Terms of Use • Hands-on practice mapping a license • Preparation for profiling local ERM for expressing Terms of Use
What are we “mapping”? • Terms of use subset from the ERMI Appendix E: beginning p. 151 • Developed to reflect key library use issues • Does not include all issues governed by license agreements
Digitally copy Print copy Scholarly sharing Interlibrary loan print or fax Interlibrary loan secure electronic transmission Course reserve print Course reserve electronic – cached copy Electronic link Course pack print Course pack electronic Sample ERMI “Terms of Use”
Values: Permitted and Prohibited • Permitted (explicit) • Permitted (interpreted) • Prohibited (explicit) • Prohibited (interpreted) • Silent (uninterpreted) • Not applicable
Mapping Challenges • Different wording • Term buried in the license • License more granular than data element • Data element more granular than license • No match between license and data elements • Local interpretation
EDItEUR review of ERMI • ERMI Phase 1 as a basis for a standard for license terms expression; commissioned from Rightscom • ERMI 1 was a valuable starting point, but further development required • Terms dictionary would need a more rigorous (onto)logical structure • Proposed an <indecs>-based rights model: licenses are about events (permitted, prohibited, required, etc)
ONIX for Licensing Terms • Proof of concept project in 2005, supported by the Publishers Licensing Society and JISC • Work-in-progress drafts published on the EDItEUR website • Two JISC projects under way in 2005/2006 • International License Expression Working Group (LEWG) sponsored by NISO, DLF, PLS and EDItEUR, to provide input to ONIX development and to ensure liaison with ERMI 2
ONIX Publisher License message • The first member of what will become a family of ONIX Licensing Terms formats, using the same underlying structures • An XML message format that can deliver a structured expression of a publisher’s license for the use of (digital) resources, from publisher to agent to subscribing institution (or consortium) • A specification, an XML schema, and a formal dictionary of controlled values
Components of the message • Message header: from, to, date, etc • Preamble: license identification, parties, dates, signatories, etc • Definitions • Structured terms • Term citations
License Expression Working Group • Jointly sponsored by DLF, NISO, EDItEUR, and PLS. • Large representative membership. • Working with EDItEUR’s ONIX standards as basis for new ONIX Licensing message. • Will allow (but not require) greater specificity than DLF ERMI terms.
Basic XML Structure—Usage Terms • Relies on previous definitions: This Agent Class, “Authorized Users,” may perform this Usage, “Print,” with this Resource, “Licensed Content.”
3: Usage Data and SUSHI • Solve the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers by: • Promoting consistency in usage formatting (XML) • Automating the process
NISO SUSHI Working Group • Adam Chandler (co-chair), Cornell • Oliver Pesch (co-chair), EBSCO • Ivy Anderson, California Digital Library • Patricia Brennan, Thomson Scientific • Ted Fons, Innovative Interfaces, Inc. • Bill Hoffman, Swets Information Services • Tim Jewell, University of Washington • Ted Koppel, Ex Libris http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html
Founding Members: EBSCO Ex Libris Innovative Interfaces, Inc. Swets Information Services Thomson Scientific Newer members: Endeavor Information Systems Florida Center for Library Automation College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) from the State of Florida Community Colleges MPS ScholarlyStats Otto Harrassowitz OCLC Project Euclid Serials Solutions SirsiDynix SUSHI Contributing Partners
COUNTER • Member supported with members including: libraries; publishers; aggregators • Formed in 2003 • Goal: • Allow credible and consistent usage measurement between vendors
COUNTER Code of Practice • Code of Practice first released Jan 2003 • Release 2 published Apr 2005 • Code of Practice Addresses: • Terminology • Layout and format of reports • Processing of usage data • Categories • Delivery of reports
COUNTER Usage Reports • Journal Report 1: • Full Text Article Requests by Month and Journal • Journal Report 2: • Turnaways by Month and Journal • Database Report 1: • Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Database • Database Report 2: • Turnaways by Month and Database • Database Report 3: • Searches and Sessions by Month and Service
Journal Report 1:Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal
Client SUSHI is machine-to-machine web service. The usage consolidation application acts as the “client” and initiates a request. The content provider hosts the “server” web service which fulfills the request and returns the results. Server Usage
Client • The REQUEST is a simple XML structure and includes the following basic elements: • The requester identifies the consolidation application (e.g. Innovative ERM). • The customerReference identifies the customer for which the usage is to be pulled. • The reportDefinitiion describes the report to pull and any parameters, such as the date range. • reportRequest • requestor • customerReference • reportDefinition Server Usage
Client • reportRequest • requestor • customerReference • reportDefinition The Content Provider’s server will verify that the customer referenced has authorized the requestor to harvest reports on their behalf. Note that a standard security approach for Web Services will be used to authenticate the requestor. The Content Provider then processes the request and formats the XML response. Server Usage
The RESPONSE is an XML structure basically repeats the request (to allow the client to confirm that the response matches the request) and includes the “reports” element which encapsulates the COUNTER report. The report itself if formatted using the official COUNTER schema for reports. This protocol is designed to be easily extended to harvest other reports. Client • reportResponse • requestor • customer • reportDefinition • reports • reportRequest • requestor • customerReference • reportDefinition Server Usage
<reportRequest created="dateTime" id="string" … > • <requestor> • <id>1234</id> • <name>Innovative ERM</name> • <email>test@innovative.com</email> • </requestor> • <customerReference> • <id>789</id> • <name>Example University</name> • </customerReference> • <reportDefinition name=“Journal Report 1 (r2)"> • <filters> • <usageDateRange> • <begin>2006-01-01</begin> • <end>2006-12-31</end> • </usageDateRange> • </filters> • </reportDefinition> • </reportRequest> This is an example of a reportRequest. As you can see, this is a very light-weight protocol.
SUSHI Project Status • Web site available http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html Overview, list of participants, toolkit, sample code, developer listserv • Journal Report 1 Prototype done • Security “wrapper” done • First deployment complete • Memorandum of Understanding between NISO and COUNTER • Plan to complete technical work by end of May
SUSHI Next Steps • Publicize, push for adoption by data providers • Write NISO “Draft Standard for Trial Use” • Conduct a series of Web-based seminars to promote and educate (2 offered recently, 1 more to be offered soon) • Organize NISO-sponsored stakeholder meeting (late 2006 or early 2007) to gather input from trial use • Revise draft into “real standard” • Expand scope beyond Journal Report 1 (Database Reports likely next) • Seek endorsement by library community to expect SUSHI compliance from content providers • ICOLC considering guideline revisions to specify XML delivery format and endorse SUSHI
Summary of Resources • Project COUNTER • http://www.projectcounter.org • COUNTER Auditing Requirements and Tests • http://www.projectcounter.org/r2/R2_Appendix_E_Auditing_Requirements_and_Tests.pdf • SUSHI Web Site • http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html