dlf ermi update alcts serials standards forum

DLF ERMI UpdateALCTS Serials Standards

Forum

Tim JewellUniversity 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

The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase I

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

Provide Support

EvaluateMonitor Provide Access

Order, RegisterOrder, Register

CatalogCatalog

Digital RegistryDigital Registry

Proxy serverProxy server

GatewayGateway

WebBridgeWebBridge

Investigate

Inform usersInform users

Track problemsTrack problems

TroubleshootTroubleshoot

Manage changesManage changes

Provide TrainingProvide Training

TrialTrial

Assess need/budget

Assess need/budget

License terms

License terms

PricePrice

EvaluateEvaluate

Administer

Usage statsUsage stats

Review alternatives

Review alternatives

Review problemsReview

problems

User feedback

User feedback

Contact info

Payment, manage financials

Payment, manage financials

Setup contactsSetup contacts

Customize interfaceCustomize interface

Holdings management

Holdings management

Set up usage statisticsSet 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

Data Dictionary

Data Structure

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

Sample ERMI “Terms of Use” 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

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

2: License Expression Standards

• 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)

EDItEUR review of ERMI

• 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 for Licensing Terms

• 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

ONIX Publisher License message

• Message header: from, to, date, etc

• Preamble: license identification, parties, dates, signatories, etc

• Definitions

• Structured terms

• Term citations

Components of the message

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.”

Sample ONIX License XML

SUSHISUSHI

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

SUSHISUSHI

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

SUSHISUSHI

SUSHI Contributing Partners

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

SUSHISUSHI

COUNTER

• Member supported with members including: libraries; publishers; aggregators

• Formed in 2003

• Goal:– Allow credible and consistent usage

measurement between vendors

SUSHISUSHI

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

SUSHISUSHI

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

SUSHISUSHI

Journal Report 1:Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal

SUSHISUSHI

Client

Server

Usage

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.

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.

SUSHISUSHI

Client

Server

Usage

reportRequest

•requestor

•customerReference

•reportDefinition

reportRequest

•requestor


•reportDefinition

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.

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.

SUSHISUSHI

Client

Server

Usage

reportRequest

•requestor


•reportDefinition

reportRequest

•requestor


•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.

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.

SUSHISUSHI

Client

Server

Usage

reportRequest

•requestor


•reportDefinition

reportRequest

•requestor


•reportDefinition

reportResponse

•requestor

•customer

•reportDefinition

•reports

reportResponse

•requestor

•customer

•reportDefinition

•reports

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.

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.

SUSHISUSHI

<reportRequest created="dateTime" id="string" … > <requestor>

<id>1234</id> <name>Innovative ERM</name> <email>[email protected]</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.

This is an example of a reportRequest. As you can see, this is a very light-weight protocol.

SUSHISUSHI

SUSHI Project Status

• Web site availablehttp://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html Overview, list of participants, toolkit, sample code, developer Overview, list of participants, toolkit, sample code, developer

listservlistserv

• Journal Report 1 Prototype doneJournal Report 1 Prototype done• Security “wrapper” doneSecurity “wrapper” done• First deployment completeFirst deployment complete• Memorandum of Understanding between NISO Memorandum of Understanding between NISO

and COUNTERand COUNTER• Plan to complete technical work by end of MayPlan to complete technical work by end of May

SUSHISUSHI

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 ICOLC considering guideline revisions to specify XML delivery

format and endorse SUSHIformat and endorse SUSHI

SUSHISUSHI

Summary of Resources

• Project COUNTER– http://www.projectcounter.org

• COUNTER Auditing Requirements and Tests– http://www.projectcounter.org/r2/R2_Appendix_E_Aud

iting_Requirements_and_Tests.pdf

• SUSHI Web Site

– http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

dlf ermi update alcts serials standards forum

Documents