DLF ERMI Update ALCTS Serials Standards Forum
description
Transcript of 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
•customerReference
•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
•customerReference
•reportDefinition
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.
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
•customerReference
•reportDefinition
reportRequest
•requestor
•customerReference
•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