The NISO ERM Data Standards and
Best Practices Review
Tim Jewell
Project Co-Chair
University of Washington
Electronic Resources & Libraries Conf.
Austin, TX
Feb. 1, 2010
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
Part 1: ERMI
ERMI “Family History”

Chandler & Jewell Web Hub: 2001
 Jewell DLF study (“Selection and Presentation of
Commercially Available Electronic Resources”): 2001
 DLF/NISO Pre-standardization Workshop: 2002
 DLF ERMI (Electronic Resource Management
Initiative): 2002-2004
 ERMI 2 (Electronic Resource Management Initiative,
Phase II): 2006-2008
 NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices
Review: 2009+
The DLF Electronic Resource
Management Initiative, Phase I
ERMI 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
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
E-Resource Acquisitions Workflow
Propose
Evaluate
Content, Platform, Cost
OK
License
Technical Feasibility
OK
OK
Approve / Negotiate
Order / Register for Access
Implement
Proxy Server
Portal
Catalog
Link Resolver
Ongoing Management / Stewardship
License
terms
Price
Trial
Assess
need/budget
Order, Register
Evaluate
Catalog
User
feedback
Investigate
Digital Registry
Usage stats
Review
alternatives
Review
problems
Evaluate
Monitor
Provide Access
Track problems
Gateway
Contact info
Link Resolver
Provide Support
Inform users
Proxy server
Administer
Payment, manage
financials
Setup contacts
Troubleshoot
Manage changes
Provide Training
Customize interface
Holdings
management
Set up usage statistics
The DLF ERMI 2004 Report

Relationships (Data Model)



Information (Data Dictionary)





Packages and their constituent parts
Knowing which resources share the same interface,
license terms, business terms…
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
ERMI Report “by the numbers”:
1
Entity Relationship Diagram
 4 ERM Workflow Flowcharts
 8 Main Functional Requirements, 47
numbered subheads, +109 more
detailed specifications
 27 Data Structure “entities”
 ~ 300 Data Elements in Dictionary
 10
“Quick Fix” XML data elements
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
But . . .
ERMI was not a Standard
AND . . .
All has not been well
in ERMI Land . . .
 Abandoned
vendor development
projects
 Slow, difficult, partial and/or failed
implementations
 Deferred purchase decisions
 Recent conference program themes:
 ALA:
“Promise and Disappointment”
 ICOLC: “What Went Wrong?”
“What is to be done?”
Part 2: the Emerging ERM
Standards Landscape
Why Standards?

Reduce re-keying
 Reduce maintenance cost & disruption
 Durability of data
 Avoid supplier lock-in
 Easier development path
 Platform for collaboration
 Whole system economies
Source: “The Business Case for Standards” (JISC)
Standards vs. Best Practices?
 NISO
Standards
 Balloted
 Examples:
 Formally
Designated Best Practices
 Examples:
 “Local”
MARC, ONIX-SOH, Z39.50
KBART, SERU
Best Practices
Current E-Resource Standards
Landscape
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: 1

Link resolvers & knowledge bases



Open URL
KBART
Open URL Quality Metrics Project (new 2-year
NISO project)
Source: R. Kasprowski: “Best Practice & Standardization Initiatives
for Managing Electronic Resources,” ASIST Bull., Oct/Nov 2008
(v. 35 no. 1, pp. 13-19)
KBART
(Knowledge Bases and Related Tools)

Joint effort of NISO and the UK Serials Group
(launched January 2008)

Draft 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/
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: 2

The Work, manifestations & access points








MARC
DOIs and CrossRef
ONIX-SOH, ONIX-SPS, ONIX-SRN
Project Transfer
ISBN-13
ISSN-L
ISTC
Proposed NISO Work Item: Recommended
Practices for the Presentation and Identification of
E-Journals
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: 3

Integration of usage & cost-related data



COUNTER
SUSHI
CORE
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 SUSHIcompliant as of September 2009
Future of SUSHI:
Beyond COUNTER reports

SUSHI designed as a general protocol for
retrieving XML “reports”

Can be used for non-COUNTER usage reports

Can also be used to automate delivery of other
XML “messages”, such as:


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>
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 through March 2010
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/core
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: 4

Coding license terms & defining consensus


ONIX-PL
SERU
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
EDItEUR review of ERMI

ERMI Phase 1 a basis for a license terms
expression standard; commissioned from
Rightscom

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)
ONIX for Publications Licenses
(ONIX-PL)

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
Enter SERU
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: 5
 Data
exchange using institutional
identifiers
(“licensing unit identifier”)
OCLC WorldCat Registry
Vcard
Shibboleth, Eduperson, NCIP?
 I2



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_n
ames
Learning from ERMI, SUSHI,
CORE, etc.
 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
 Data sharing is necessary
Standards & Best Practice
Groupings: A Final Issue
 “Relationships
A
among standards”
“NISO ERM Best Practices Framework?”
Part 3: The NISO ERM Data
Standards and Best Practices
Review
Timeline

Jan. 2009: Began exploratory focus group
discussions at ALA Midwinter
 June 2009: NISO Business Information
Topics Committee approved project
 Sep. 2009: Ivy Anderson presents at NISO
Library Resource Mgmt. Systems conference
 Nov. 2009: Steering Committee finalized
 Dec. 2009: Charge revised/finalized
 April 2010: Report Deadline
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

“ERMI has done a good job of identifying and
organizing the problem, not necessarily solving
it”

“One thing ERMI has done well is to define a
data dictionary that different systems can use to
move data around“

“ERMI should be the master custodian of data
elements”

We still need ERMI to create a context for how
all of the pieces need to work together”
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



About Libraries


need to accurately represent vendor-resource-holdings
relationships
need to manage resources and holdings in a standardized and
shareable way
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
The NISO ERM Data Standards and
Best Practices Review: the “Plan”

Perform a ‘gap analysis’ regarding ERM-related data,
standards, and best practices

Begin with review of ERM data dictionary, mapping
elements to other relevant standards projects

Consult with vendors, libraries using ERM systems
and other stakeholders for additional feedback on data
requirements and ERM system implementation and
management issues.

More information at
http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/workgroup.php?wg_abbrev=er
mreview
The NISO ERM Data Standards and
Best Practices Review: Deliverables

Recommend future of ERMI Data Dictionary

Describe typical challenges libraries face in
using currently available ERM systems and
services

Identify gaps in interoperability and best
practices
Gap Analysis Steering Group

Ivy Anderson (CDL, co-chair)
 Tim Jewell (UW, co-chair)
 Jeff Aipperspach (Serials Solutions)
 Jeanne Downey (University of Houston)
 Liam Earney (JISC)
 Deberah England (Wright State)
 Kathryn Harnish (Ex Libris)
 Rafal Kasprowski (Rice)
 Tim McGeary (Lehigh)
 Angela Riggio (UCLA)
ERMI “Mapping” Strategy

Work from related standards and best
practices
 Determine correspondence, overlap
 Compare meanings, uses
 Determine whether ERMI data dictionary
should address, or relevant standard
(w/revisions) sufficient to address ERM needs
Survey Work Plan

Assimilate recent ERM survey work
 Identify major topics to focus on
 Possibilities:






System implementation problems
Workflows, internal communication
Licensing
Consortial services
Cost per use/evaluation
Ebooks
Closing thoughts . . .
 Budget
constraints are real, getting
tougher, and not going away
 Libraries need to get more efficient
 We need more:
 Modularity,
specialized applications
 Data sharing and transport
 “Light weight” standards
 Flexible, dynamic structures for “knitting”
pieces together where needed
To participate . . .
contact
 the
NISO office at www.niso.org/contact
 Tim at tjewell@uw.edu
 Ivy at ivy.anderson@ucop.edu