NISO Standards Update ALA 2012 Annual Conference, Anaheim Tim Jewell University of Washington tjewell@uw.edu

1. The NISO ERM Data Standards • and Best Practices Review NISO Standards Update ALA 2012 Annual Conference, Anaheim Tim Jewell University of Washington tjewell@uw.edu

2. ERM Data Standards and Best Practices ReviewWorking Group • Working Group Formed: 2010 • Tim Jewell (chair, University of Washington) • Jeff Aipperspach (formerly Serials Solutions) • Ivy Anderson (California Digital Library) • Deberah England (Wright State University) • RafalKasprowski (Rice University) • Tim McGeary (Lehigh University) • Bob McQuillan (Innovative Interfaces) • Angela Riggio (UCLA)

3. Successor to Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative (“ERMI”) and “ERMI2” • DLF/NISO “Pre-standardization” workshop • Chicago (May 2002) • “ERMI” (2004) – Data model and dictionary established working standards for E-resource management • “ERMI2” (2008) – Training for license analysis; developed SUSHI protocol and NISO CORE recommended practice

4. Report Goals • Gap analysis of standards and best practices • “Mapped” current standards and best practices to the ERMI Data Dictionary to identify gaps • Literature review of ERM successes and challenges • Recommendations for the future of ERMI Data Dictionary • Recommendations for future work

5. Final Report: • Making Good on the Promise of ERM: A Standards and Best Practices Discussion Paper • Available on NISO website (www.niso.org)

6. Categories analyzed and mapped to the ERMI Data Dictionary • Link resolvers & knowledge bases • Works, manifestations & access points • Usage & cost-related data • License information • Data exchange using institutional identifiers • Source: R. Kasprowski: “Best Practice & Standardization Initiatives for Managing Electronic Resources,” • ASIST Bull., Oct/Nov 2008 (v. 35 no. 1, pp. 13-19)

7. Findings 1 • In most of these areas, targeted standards and best practices have evolved to fulfill and/or exceed the scope of the ERMI DD • KBART COUNTER • SUSHI I2 for Institutional Identifiers • ONIX for Serials (SOH, SPS, SRN) • NISO should continue encouraging well-focused ERM Standards Development

8. Findings 2 • Do we still need an ERM Data Dictionary? • 2009 input to ERMI Gap Project: • ERMI data model still important for reference and context • Data dictionary is key to functionality and interoperability • Continued value to a data dictionary encompassing ERM functions, facilitating interoperability, and evolving with technologies and business models • BUT • Large, complex project lacking community “will” • Better to focus on more targeted areas

9. Findings 3: Problematic Areas • Interoperability • CORE (Cost of Resource Exchange) • Designed for interoperability between ILS and ERM systems • Needs refinement, implementation testing and uptake • ILS, Link Resolvers, ERM systems…

10. Findings 3: Problematic Areas • License Expression/Encoding • ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL) • More robust than ERMI, but little uptake • Neither adequately addresses the needs of libraries

11. ONIX-PL Developments • License Expression Working Group created (2005) • ONIX-PL to ERMI mapping, etc. (2007) • EDItEUR/NISO ONIX-PL Working Group (2008-2010) • Favorable Reports • NISO webinars, 2008 & 2009 (SCELC, Serials Solutions, EDItEUR) • ER&L 2010 presentation (Castro & Chen)

12. And Then . . . ?

13. But we saw some “hopeful signs” • UK and Canada • RELI • “License registry” demonstration system • JISC Collections • 80 licenses encoded in ONIX-PL • Beta version of side-by-side comparison tool • OCUL (Ontario Council of University Libraries) • 30 Licenses encoded in ONIX-PL • OCLC Interest for Web Scale Management? • Kuali OLE Interest

14. Findings 4: Creating a Viable“License Expression Environment” • Shared, extensible encoding scheme • Scope/select how much to encode • Ability to expand encodings & displays • Editing tools • Sharing encoded licenses • Interoperability, move and re-use data • Vendor/publisher participation

15. Recommendation: A Renewed NISO Role in License Expression? • Re-start active discussions to achieve consensus on library and community needs (a “third way?”)

16. (More) Unfinished Business: The Workflow Problem • Functional Requirements outlined in 2004 ERMI report • (Appendices A & B) • But not implemented in most systems • “Establish a site-defined routing workflow for resources approved for purchase”: • Send notifications to designated staff/depts. • Place resources in a queue for further action: • Placing an order • Completion of cataloging • Implementation of access management

17. The Workflow Problem • A key pain point in 2009 task force planning discussions • Many “functional areas” • Trial and selection; Licensing; Acquisitions; Cataloging; Registration & activation, Access maintenance, Troubleshooting, Evaluation . . . • Task force investigation reinforced this concern • Dozens of local workflow documents reviewed

18. Workflow Findings • The term “workflow” lacks a consistent definition • problems often discussed at different levels of granularity • Local context, organization, and resources are important and lead to diverse solutions • Significant risk for systems developers in ‘getting it wrong’ • Despite diversity, substantial consensus about many basic tasks and decision points

19. Workflow Recommendations • NISO should convene a series of webinars in 2012 to identify common needs and best practices • Focus on specific functional task areas noted • Include vendor / developer perspectives • Discuss findings at future conferences to guide further work