Whither ERMI?the Once and Future DLF Electronic

Resource Management Initiative becomes

NISO ERM Data Standards Review

Ivy AndersonCalifornia Digital Library

NISO ForumLibrary Resource Management Systems: New Challenges, New Opportunities

October 8-9, 2009

Metro Meeting Center

Boston, MA

Oren’s opening remarks

Libraries want: Single entry point for discovery and delivery Consolidating workflows – uniting traditional

functions with digital library functions Re-use of bibliographic metadata for leveraging of

effort

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

Background: Digital Library Federation E-Resource Management Initiative

Evolution of the DLF Initiative Outgrowth of Tim Jewell’s 2001 DLF study, “Selection and

Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources”

Two-Year Project 2002-2004

Goals: “Develop common specifications and tools for managing the

license agreements, related administrative information, and internal processes associated with collections of licensed electronic resources”

Describe architectures needed for electronic resource management

Foster systems development Promote best practices and standards

http://www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm

Drivers

E-resources an increasing focus of library purchasing activity

Electronic Resources Expenditures as a Percent of Total Materials Expenditures

0

10

20

30

40

50

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Per

cent

Average

2003: $230 million (25%)

2007: $536 million (47%)

ARL Libraries 2007 E-Resource Expenditures

Drivers

E-resources are different from print Complex to describe Complex to fund and acquire Complex to support and manage Rise of licensing as a new practice in libraries

Trends in local practice Wide staff involvement in selection, implementation & ongoing

support Tracking and presenting license terms to staff and end users Planned/cyclic product evaluations prior to renewal

Lack of tools to support new activities and workflows

Print Acquisitions Workflow

Order

Catalog

Bind / Book Prep

Select

E-Resource Acquisitions Workflow

Evaluate

Content, Platform, Cost License Technical Feasibility

Approve / Negotiate

Implement

CatalogPortalProxy Server Link Resolver

OK OK OK

Order / Register for Access

Propose

Ongoing Management / Stewardship

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

The DLF ERMI 2004 Report

The DLF ERMI 2004 Report

Relationships (Data Model) Packages and their constituent parts Knowing which resources share the same interface,

license terms, business terms…

Information (Data Dictionary) License permissions and constraints User IDs, passwords, administrative info Contacts for support and troubleshooting Cancellation restrictions, price caps, etc.

Workflows (Functional Requirements) Mounting Trials Routing Licenses Placing Orders Implementing access Notifying relevant staff

Appendix C: Entity Relationship Diagram

Appendix D: Data Element Dictionary

Almost 350 data elements with definitions Alphabetical order

Data Element Name

Identifier Definition Comments

Embargo Period

embargoperiod The amount of time by which content is intentionally delayed

Refer to developing standards (e.g., ONIX for Serials) for values 

Fair Use Clause Indicator

fairuseclause A clause that affirms statutory fair use rights under U.S. copyright law (17 USC Section 107), or that the agreement does not restrict or abrogate the rights of the licensee or its user community under copyright law

Fair use rights include, but are not limited to, printing, downloading, and copying

Most applicable for U.S. libraries but may be of interest for other countries when recording terms for products licensed by U.S. businesses

Format format The form of presentation of a resource

Examples of electronic formats include descriptions of text (e.g., ASCII); images (e.g., JPEG); audio (e.g., “basic”)

excerpt:

Appendix E: Data Structure

The data elements of Appendix D structured to show logical groupings and relationships

System functionality explanations Data types, enumerated values, cardinality

Interface Entity

Definition Interface entity is part of the master set Electronic Product. It is comprised of many elements identifying or associated with the interface of an electronic resource. An interface is the software platform or website through which a particular electronic resource is made available.

Elements Interface ID, Interface Acquisition, Interface Prevailing Terms, Interface Access Information, Interface Administrative Information, Interface Name, Interface Digital Object Identifier, Interface Other Identifier Source, Interface Other Identifier Number, Interface Provider, Medium, Interface Status, Interface Public Note

Notes Elements may be derived from other linked entities as appropriate. Interface is one of two subsets of the Electronic Product set; for some bridge entities an id from either its sibling Electronic Resource or from Interface must be present, but both are not always required. FR19

Element Definition Element Type

System Use / Functionality

Values Option-ality

Repeat-ability

Notes / Examples

Interface ID The identification number assigned to the interface by the electronic resource management system

unique ID system generated identifier

R N This should be considered a unique local identifier. Links an Interface record to other data.

Interface Acquisition

The acquisition which has made the interface available to the collection

pointer ID from Acquisition entity

RA N

Interface Prevailing Terms

The business and legal terms under which the interface is licensed and acquired

pointer FR1, FR2 ID from the Prevailing Terms entity

RA N

excerpt:

Functional Requirements

Support the ‘Life Cycle’ of electronic resources

Selection and acquisition Access provision Resource administration User support and troubleshooting (staff and end-

users) Renewal and retention decisions

ERMI Successes

Articulated the relationships among licenses, resources, packages, providers, and platforms

Fostered recognition that licenses and related metadata had to be properly managed

Spawned the development of systems to manage e-resource information “If last year’s hot product was federated searching, then 2004 belongs to

electronic resources management (ERM)” and of the impact of the DLF ERMI documents: “in a nearly unprecedented move, nearly every large automation vendor has used the specifications created by librarians.”

Andrew Pace, American Libraries, 2004

What ERMI Was Not

A Standard

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 ontological structure

Proposed an <indecs>-based rights model: licenses are about events (permitted, prohibited, required, etc)

EDItEUR review of ERMI

The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase II (2006)

Training for License Term Mapping (ARL/DLF collaboration)

E-Resource Usage Statistics Protocol for automated delivery (“SUSHI”) Statement of functional requirements

Data Standards Data Dictionary revision License Expression

License Information: Challenges

ERMI Terms of Use Elements

Fair Use Clause Indicator Database Protection Override

Indicator All Rights Reserved Indicator Citation Requirement Details Authorized User Definition Local Authorized User

Definition Indicator Other User Restriction Note Other Use Restriction Note Concurrent User Digitally Copy* Print Copy*

Scholarly Sharing* Distance Education* Interlibrary Loan Print or Fax* Interlibrary Loan Secure

Electronic Transmission* Interlibrary Loan Electronic* Interlibrary Loan Record

Keeping Required Indicator Course Reserve Print* Course Reserve Electronic/

Cached Copy* Electronic Link Permission* Course Pack Print* Course Pack Electronic* Remote Access*

ERMI Permission Values

Permitted (explicit) Permitted (interpreted) Prohibited (explicit) Prohibited (interpreted) Silent (uninterpreted) Not Applicable

ERMI 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

Joint License Expression Working Group (LEWG) sponsored by NISO, DLF, PLS and EDItEUR (2005)

now ONIX-PL Working Group (2008)

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/onixpl

A structured ontology and XML messaging protocol for exchanging licensing information

ONIX-PL format specification v1.0 (2008)

Pilots underway by JISC and others

ONIX-ERMI mapping completed 2007

ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL)

Enter SERU

Other Related Standards Developments post-ERMI Usage Data: COUNTER and SUSHI

Knowledge-bases: KBART

Cost Data: CORE

Institutional Identifiers: I2

COUNTER: Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources Code of Practice first released Jan 2003 Release 3 published Aug 2008 Code of Practice Addresses:

Content, format, delivery mechanisms and data processing rules for a set of core usage reports Terminology Layout and format of reports Processing of usage data Delivery of reports

NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI): Z39.93 A key project of the ERMI 2 initiative

Solves the problem of harvesting and managing usage data from a growing number of providers

A web-services model for requesting data that replaces the user’s need to download files from vendor’s website The SUSHI client runs on the library’s server, usually associated

with an ERM system. The SUSHI server runs on the Content Provider’s server, and

has access to the usage data.

SUSHI is Now a Requirement of the COUNTER 3 Code of Practice

Vendors must be SUSHI-compliant as of September 2009

Future of SUSHI: Beyond COUNTER reports

SUSHI was designed as a general protocol for retrieving XML “reports”

SUSHI can be used for non-COUNTER usage reports

SUSHI can also be used for other XML “messages”, for example, automate delivery of: Holdings data with ONIX-SOH License terms with ONIX PL

Source: Oliver Pesch Presentation <http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi/info/OPESCH_-_SUSHI-Lille.ppt>

KBART (Knowledge Base and Related Tools) Joint effort of NISO and the UK Serials Group

(launched January 2008)

Drraft guidelines for best practice to effect smoother interaction between members of the knowledge base supply chain Content standards for holdings data exchange

Centralized information portal http://www.uksg.org/kbart/

NISO Cost of Resource Exchange (CORE): Z39.93-200x DLF-ERMI White Paper on Interoperability between Acquisitions

Modules of Integrated Library Systems and Electronic Resource Management Systems (January 2008)

Working Group Co-chairs Ed Riding, SirsiDynix Ted Koppel, Auto-Graphics

Facilitate transfer of acquisitions data between ILS and ERM systems provide a common method of requesting cost-related information from an ILS

for a specific electronic resource Develop and refine the list of data elements to exchange create a transport protocol useful in moving these data elements from one system

to another. Write a small number of use cases

Draft Standard for Trial Use available (March 2009)http://www.niso.org/workrooms/core

I2: Institutional Identifiers Working Group http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2 Co-chairs

Grace Agnew, Rutgers University Tina Feick, Harrassowitz

A globally unique, extensible identifier for institutions for use in the information supply chain

E-Resources, Institutional Repositories, Library Resource Management

Related work: OCLC Networking Names http://oclcresearch.webjunction.org/networking_nam

es

Learning from ERMI: some thoughts Comprehensiveness is difficult

To describe To build and implement Example: e-metrics

Many useful sources, multiple views needed

E-resources and markets change quickly Small-scale development works Robust data exchange is critical

Library needs for e-resource data maipulation march relentlessly onward

Enter ERMI Data Standards Review

Goal: “Gap Analysis”

Is the ERMI Data Dictionary still needed?

If so, what persistent structures should be instituted to revise and maintain it?

What other e-reource management needs remain unaddressed by current standards efforts?

Current E-Resource Standards Landscape

ALA Midwinter 2009 NISO-led Discussions: What We Heard Discussed current ERM needs and future of ERMI with over a

dozen domain experts: Librarians, system developers, standards representatives, supply

chain vendors

Libraries want: Simplified license elements Workflow tools and best practices Authority control for products, vendors (including tracking vendor

name changes, acquisitions & mergers) Management of data elements for future interoperability and data

transport Holdings data for ebooks and journals – a huge pain point for

many customers – ““this resource from this publisher / provider on this platform during this time period“

What We Heard: Flexibility

Need an ERMI lite for selected core elements and lots of free form notes – for business terms, resources in negotiation, etc.

Rapidly evolving business models – open access, pay-per-view…

What We Heard: Conflicting Inputs Focus on data elements, leave application to

system developers. User community should shape application and use

Libraries need best practices guidance to help them implement systems

What We Heard: ERMI Still Has Many Champions

“We still need ERMI to create a context for how all of the pieces need to work together”

“ERMI has done a good job of identifying and organizing the problem, not necessarily solving it”

“ERMI should be the master custodian of data elements “

“One thing ERMI has done well is to define a data dictionary that different systems can use to move data around”

Major Takeaways About Standards

ERMI data model is still important for reference and context Data dictionary is key to functionality and interoperability License elements / values need simplification – ONIX-PL may or

may not serve library needs Vendor and product identity management is an ongoing problem

need to accurately represent vendor-resource-holdings relationships need to manage resources and holdings in a standardized and shareable

way

About Libraries Libraries need help with workflows and best practices

About Systems Existing systems are under-developed Libraries need more specific functionality – ability to import / export

data, support everyday business activities / functions Data exchange capability is critical

NISO ERM Data Standards Review: Goals

Perform a ‘gap analysis’ of functions and needs unaddressed by existing standards More data-gathering through surveys, conference-related focus groups, webinars

Make recommendations for future work

Membership currently being formed Seek participation from librarians, systems and content management vendors,

publishers A mailing list will be set up for wider communication

Report due to NISO Business Topic Committee April 2010

More information at http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=ermreview

Future Data Movement and Management Landscape Features?

Budget constraints are real, getting tougher, and not going away

Libraries need to get more efficient

We need less: Silo-ization Redundancy of effort

We need more: Modularity, specialized applications Data sharing and transport “Light weight” standards Flexible, dynamic structures for “knitting” pieces together where

needed

Broader Challenges

“It’s about agility and flexibility” As library systems and services move from the

local level to the network level, how do we ensure agility and adaptability?

Can our organizations evolve fast enough?