Title: Update on DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), with Focus on XML Schema for e-Resource Licenses
1Update on DLF Electronic Resource Management
Initiative (ERMI), with Focus on XML Schema for
e-Resource Licenses
- Adam Chandler
- Cornell University
- ALA 2004 Annual Conference
- Orlando, Florida
- June 25, 2004
2Agenda
- Background the DLF E-Resource Management
Initiative - Quick Review of Consortial Support Issues
- Next Steps ERMI Project ERM Development
- Open Discussion Vendor/Library Initiatives
- Break
- Results of ERMI XML and License Information
Investigation
3Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource
Management Initiative Goals
- Describe architectures needed to manage large
collections of licensed e-resources - Establish lists of elements and definitions
- Write and publish XML Schemas/DTDs
- Promote best practices and standards for data
interchange - http//www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm
4ERMI Project Deliverables(google web hub) or
http//www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy
/home.html
- Problem Definition/Road Map
- Functional Specifications
- Workflow Diagram
- Entity Relationship Diagram
- Data Elements and Definitions
- XML Schema
5ERM and Consortial Issues
- Continuum of consortium types
- Buying Club
- Self-funded, voluntary buy-in
- Comprehensive
- Central funding, shared mission, collaborative
collection development, integrated services - Different staffing, roles and expectations
- Varying ILSs, other tools within group
6ERMs and Consortial Administrivia Possible
Connections
- Consistent Descriptive Data
- Bibliographic, holdings
- Contact Information Management
- Vendors, Libraries
- Acquisition Management
- (Whos in, cost shares)
- Accurate print, electronic subscription
information - Evaluative data subscription cost, usage, impact
factor - Administrative Information
- Concurrent users, IPs
- License Information
- Usage Information
- Workflow and status tracking
- Troubleshooting and problem tracking
- Need for data standards, interoperability
7Next Steps ERMI Project ERM Development
- Write and publish final report (release under
Creative Commons Attribution license) - Form joint LITA and ALCTS interest groups?
- Vendor development
- Renew standards discussion process?
- Should there be a (or multiple) standard(s)?
- What maintenance agency?
- Develop resource record exchange testbed?
8Developments (1) Vendors
- Innovative Interfaces ERM module announced
2003 now moving from beta to production - ExLibris Verde product announced release
planned by end of 2004 - Dynix White Paper available soon, development
to follow - VTLS Verify product and rapid development plan
announced
9Developments (2) Vendors
- Endeavor Product announced focus groups at ALA
- SIRSI System prototype to be shown at ALA
- Serials Solutions in planning
- Others?
10Developments (3) Libraries and Consortia
- Colorado Alliance (Gold Rush)
- Enhanced ERM support later in 2004?
- Johns Hopkins HERMES
- Open Source, but may or may not be maintained and
developed - UCLA Erdb
- UC System evaluating alternatives, including
possible Erdb expansion - Others?
11Break
12Results of ERMI XML and License Information
Investigation
13XML Investigation Sub-group
- Adam Chandler (Cornell, Chair)
- Sharon Farb (UCLA)
- Nancy Hoebelheinrich (Stanford)
- Angela Riggio (UCLA)
- Nathan Robertson (Johns Hopkins)
- Rick Silterra (Cornell)
- Simon St. Laurent (OReilly Associates)
- Robin Wendler (Harvard)
- special thanks to
- Renato Iannella (developer of ODRL)
- Susanne Guth (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien)
14Why License Focus?
- Originally considered a schema for the entire
data dictionary, but . . . - Significant overlap with existing and emerging
schemas. - Limited functionality.
- Why licensing?
- Area of considerable concern and current
interest. - Significant commercial activity in defining and
schematizing. - Limited library activity in defining and
schematizing.
15Uses for License Data Exchange
- Licensing elements actionable in an ERM 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
16Existing License/Rights Efforts
- ONIX for Serials
- ltindecsgt
- METS
- ODRL
- XrML
- Rights are part of scope, but planned for later
- development.
- metadata framework. Insufficiently precise.
- Has developed a draft simple rights schema
- while more comprehensive RELs (XrML,
- ODRL) are being developed and debated.
17ODRL vs. XrML (MPEG-21/5)
- ODRL
- does not determine . . . requirements of any
trusted services . . . that utilize its
language. - does not enforce or mandate any policies for
DRM. - has no license requirements and is available in
the spirit of open source software.
- XrML
- licenses can be interpreted and enforced by the
consumption application. - How will the industry benefit from XrML? Enables
the creation of new revenue streams based on the
ability to control the use and access of digital
content and services - a portfolio of patented technologies. . . . if
you use XrML in a context covered by the
ContentGuard patents, then there may be a fee.
18Read
- Coyle, Karen. "Rights Expression Languages A
Report for the Library of Congress." February,
2004. Available at - http//www.loc.gov/standards/Coylereport_final1sin
gle.pdf
19License/Rights
- License (ERMI) Information from the legal
document, a contractual agreement, that defines
the relationship between the grantor and the
licensee and the terms and conditions of use for
the product. - Rights (ODRL) Rights include Permissions, which
can then contain Constraints, Requirements, and
Conditions. Permissions are the actual usages or
activities allowed. Constraints are limits to
these permissions. Requirements are the
obligations needed to exercise the Permission.
Conditions specify exceptions.
20ERMI License Terms
Fair Use Clause Indicator Citation Requirement Details Display Digitally Copy Print Copy Scholarly Sharing Distance Education ILL Print or Fax ILL Secure Electronic Transmission ILL Electronic Course Reserve Print Course Reserve Electronic / Cached Copy Electronic Link Permission Course Pack Print Course Pack Electronic Remote Access Walk-in Users Authorized User Groups Authorized Locations
21XML Container Model w/REL
XML
ERMI Elements
Rights Expression Language
Data Values
22ODRL Permissions Model
23ERMI License ? ODRL Rights Expression
- Many similarities in function specifics
- ODRL is extensible, non-proscriptive
- ERMI licensing needs more generic rights
statements - ERMI needs more specific rights statements
- ODRL requires explicit permission assertions
(silenceprohibition) - ODRL pictures the contracts which define
the relationships - as a series of checkboxes rather than a
complex legal - document written in somewhat creative
English.
24ERMI Permission Values
via out of the box ODRL
- Permitted (explicit)
- Permitted (interpreted)
- Prohibited (explicit)
- Prohibited (interpreted)
- Silent (uninterpreted)
- Not Applicable
25ODRL
- lto-exagreementgt
- lto-exassetgt
- lt!--Title information, etc.--gt
- lt!--description outside ODRL scope--gt
- lt/o-exassetgt
- lto-excontextgt
- lt!--Information about the agreement--gt
- lt/o-excontextgt
- lto-expermissiongt
- lto-dddisplay /gt
- lto-ddprint /gt
- lto-ddlendgt
- lto-exconstraintgt
- lto-ddcountgt5lt/o-ddcountgt
- lt/o-exconstraintgt
- lt/o-ddlendgt
- lt/o-expermissiongt
- lt/o-exagreementgt
26ERMI Extensions to ODRL
- lto-exagreementgt
- lto-expermissiongt
- lt!--explicit permissions--gt
- ltermiillprintorfax /gt
- ltermipcoursepack /gt
- lt/o-expermissiongt
- ltermiassumed-permissiongt
- lto-ddprint /gt
- lto-dddisplay /gt
- ltermischolarlysharing /gt
- lt/ermiassumed-permissiongt
- lt/o-exagreementgt
27What do we lose?
- Inability to distinguish prohibitions from
silence leads to loss of much useful data - silencedenial means extra work to identify and
explicitly state all assumed permissions - Our assumed permissions extensions dont mesh
with ODRL processing model - Extensions increase validation demands
- Concern that ERMI usage may be incorrectly used
to limit users' activities
28What do we gain?
- Uses existing rights expression language
- Avoids creation of library-specific metadata
standard - Helps build momentum for open ODRL
- Helps bridge human license reading into
actionable computing values - ? Builds a crosswalk between ERM systems and DRM
applications
29Creative Commons license via RDF
- "Unlike Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technology, which tries to restrict use of
digital works, Creative Commons is providing ways
to encourage permitted sharing and reuse of
works."
30Results of CC RDF Experiment
- The Creative Commons use case is very different
from our ERM context - While we were able to show how it is possible to
extend CC RDF to include our elements, we do not
see how it is possible to actually validate the
values in an ERM XML document using our extended
CC RDF - Conclusion Very little is gained from using this
established REL. (However, RDF as a technology
may still be useful to us.)
31ERMI Native Schema
- The benefits of using XML as data exchange
container are well established, but ODRL, MPEG
21/5 and Creative Commons RDF are all problematic
within this context - Therefore, we conclude that the focus in the near
term should be placed on developing use specific
XML application profiles that draw on ERMI
elements and other namespaces (e.g., Dublin Core).
32XML Container Model wo/REL
XML
Application Profile
Data Values
33Characteristics of an Application Profile
- May draw on one of more existing namespaces
- Introduce no new data elements
- May specify permitted schemes and values
- Can refine standard definitions
Heery, Rachel Patel, Manjula. "Application
profiles mixing and matching metadata schemas."
Ariadne Issue 25 (24-Sep-2000). Available at
http//www.ariadne.ac.uk /issue25/app-profiles/int
ro.html
34Questions and Comments
- http//www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm
- http//www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/
- Adam Chandler
- alc28_at_cornell.edu