Electronic Resource Management - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Electronic Resource Management PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 54e827-ZTU3N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Electronic Resource Management

Description:

SHERPA/RoMEO use the term Postprint which makes very little sense at all. SHERPA/RoMEO Securing Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access. Rights ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:185
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 102
Provided by: DaleneHa6
Learn more at: http://kslibassoc.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Electronic Resource Management


1
Electronic Resource Management
  • An Overview of Standards

2
Presenters
  • Mary Bailey, Serials Electronic Resource
    Librarian, Kansas State University
  • Dalene Hawthorne, Head of Systems Technical
    Services, ESU
  • Anne Liebst, Assistant Director for Technical
    Services, Washburn University

3
Agenda
  • Why are standards important?
  • Brief history of electronic resources
  • Electronic Resources Management Initiative
  • Managing License Information
  • Managing journal article versions
  • Open URL
  • COUNTER
  • SUSHI

4
Electronic Resource Management An Overview of
Standards
  • Anne Liebst, Washburn University
  • Tri-Conference 2007
  • April 10, 2007

5
Standards?
  • Well, its a lot like
  • click here

6
What I really mean is
  • standards are all over the place
  • MARC
  • Metadata XML
  • Z39.50
  • RFID
  • AACR2
  • OpenAccess
  • (Just to name a few!)

7
And now we are being told to throw out the
standards!
  • Roy Tennant MARC must die Library Journal
    10/15/2002, Vol. 127 Issue 17, p26
  • Roy Tennant Will RDA be DOA? Library Journal
    03/15/2007, Vol. 132 Issue 4, p

8
But wait!
  • Wiley just bought Blackwells
  • CSA just bought ProQuest
  • Springer is about to buy Taylor Francis
  • and the list goes on and on

9
So standards become important for electronic
materials
  • To standardize terminology and definitions,
    methods of data collection and methods of
    analyzing the data with the aim of comparing
    results and of aggregating results on a regional,
    national, or even international level.

10
So standards become important for electronic
materials
  • For the electronic collection the online
    catalog the librarys web site electronic
    document delivery online reference services
    user training on electronic services and
    internet access.
  • The main problem is how to count usage. And who
    sets the standards?

11
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
  • Non-profit association accredited by the American
    National Standards Institute (ANSI).
  • Identifies, develops, maintains, and publishes
    technical standards to manage information in our
    changing and ever-more digital environment. NISO
    standards apply both traditional and new
    technologies to the full range of
    information-related needs, including retrieval,
    re-purposing, storage, metadata, and
    preservation.
  • Founded in 1939, incorporated in 1989.
  • Represents U.S. in the International
    Standardization Organization (ISO).

12
(No Transcript)
13
Pre-Standards Research
  • Helps NISO map the business and technology
    landscape where its standards must operate.
  • A pre-standards workshop focused on Digital
    Rights Expression.
  • An exploratory workgroup on RFID examined the
    need for standards to support use in the
    library and book industries.

14
Active Standards Development
  • NISO charters groups to create standards and best
    practices.
  • The Metasearch Initiative produced a guideline,
    two draft standards and a best practices
    document.
  • The Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting
    Initiative (SUSHI) will help librarians track
    usage of online content.
  • A License Expression Working Group will develop a
    single standard for the exchange of license
    information between publishers and libraries.
  • The Web Services and Practices Working Group will
    produce best practices and interoperability
    mechanisms documents.

15
Draft Standards in Trial Use
  • Enable implementers to test the product.
  • Collection Description Specification and the
    Information Retrieval Service Description
    Specification work together to make it easier to
    find and use resources from the hidden Web.

16
Standards
  • Several Z39 Standards went to ballot others
    earned approval from ANSI.
  • Data DictionaryTechnical Metadata for Digital
    Still Images
  • The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive
    Services
  • Bibliographic References
  • Scientific and Technical ReportsPreparation,
    Presentation and Preservation
  • Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and
    Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies
  • Information Services and Use Metrics and
    Standards for Libraries and Information

17
Implementation
  • Maintenance Agencies, like ALA, assist in the
    dissemination of standards and provide
    information on changes.
  • All standards are reviewed on a regular basis at
    least five years after approval and revised as
    the information environment changes.

18
(No Transcript)
19
Example
  • ANSI/NISO Z39.50 2003
  • Information Retrieval Application Service
    Definition Protocol Specification
  • Abstract This standard defines a client/server
    based service and protocol for Information
    Retrieval. It specifies procedures and formats
    for a client to search a database provided by a
    server, retrieve database records, and perform
    related information retrieval functions. The
    protocol addresses communication between
    information retrieval applications at the the
    client and server it does not address
    interaction between the client and the end-user.
  • Maintenance Agency Library of Congress

20
In Development
  • NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting
    Initiative (SUSHI)
  • United Kingdoms Counting Online Usage of
    Electronic Resources (COUNTER)

21
Brief History of E-Resources
  • Dalene Hawthorne
  • Head of Systems and Technical Services
  • Emporia State University
  • KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007
  • Topeka, Kansas

22
Brief History Lesson
  • It all started with MARC in the mid-1960s
  • Led by the Library of Congress
  • Pilot project ended in 1967
  • General distribution began in 1969
  • Laid the foundation for resource sharing

23
Databases in the 1960s
  • First bibliographic databases were created at
    about the same time
  • Scientific and government information
  • Driven by concerns about scholarly communication
  • National Science Foundations Office of Science
    Information Service legally charged facilitating
    access
  • First Dialog database created in 1966

24
The 70s and 80s
  • WorldCat was introduced in 1971 by OCLC
  • First online catalogs were made available by the
    mid 1970s, but many libraries brought theirs up
    in the 1980s
  • CD-ROM technology changed databases in the mid
    1980s
  • User friendly interfaces
  • Juke boxes and networks
  • Full-text
  • No per-search charges
  • License agreements
  • Online databases were still heavily in use, but
    searches were usually mediated by a librarian

25
The Web
  • The Web changed everything
  • User-friendly interfaces
  • Hypertext linking
  • Easily accessible from outside the library
  • Different types of resources
  • More full text
  • Search engines
  • Link resolvers
  • Statistics
  • Need for new standards

26
Electronic Resource Management Systems
  • Many electronic resources to manage
  • Until recently, there werent tools available
  • Libraries used home-grown databases,
    spreadsheets, file folders, e-mail file folders

27
MIT Libraries
  • Developed VERA in FileMaker Pro
  • Manages acquisitions metadata
  • Provides access to e-resources through
    system-generated lists and searching capabilities
  • Use SFX as their link resolver

28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
Emporia State University
  • Serials Solutions A-Z List MARC records
  • EBSCOHost EJS Registration Tracker
  • Databases stored in content management system
    developed by the university webmaster
  • License Review
  • Creating bibliographic records
  • Scanning licenses into Millennium Media and
    linking to bib records
  • Limiting access by creating a passworded
    electronic reserve course
  • Planning for an ERM system
  • Implementing Innovatives WebBridge OpenURL link
    resolver

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
Kansas State University
  • K-State currently uses a homegrown databases
  • Purchased Verde and plan to implement

43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
Electronic Resource Management Initiative Phase
I
  • Digital Library Federation (DLF) Electronic
    Resource Management Initiative began fall 2002
    and produced
  • Functional Requirements
  • Workflow Diagrams
  • Data Dictionary
  • Entity Relationship Diagram
  • Data Structure
  • Final Report June 2005

48
Electronic Resource Management Initiative Phase
II
  • Data Standards
  • License Expression
  • Usage Data
  • Training in License Term Mapping

49
Managing Licensing Information
  • Mary Bailey
  • Serials Electronic Resource Librarian
  • Kansas State University Libraries
  • KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007
  • Topeka, Kansas

50
DLF ERM Initiative Report
  • August 2004
  • Project to develop common specifications and
    tools for management of license agreements
  • http//www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/

51
(No Transcript)
52
ERMI License Terms
  • Citation requirement details
  • Display
  • Digital copy
  • Print copy
  • Scholarly sharing
  • Distance education
  • ILL print or fax
  • Ill
  • Electronic Fair use clause indicator
  • 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

53
License Expression Working Group
  • NISO, DLF, EDItEUR and PLS were charged to
    develop a single standard for the exchange of
    license information between publishers and
    libraries
  • Monitor and make recommendations regarding the
    further development of standards relating to
    electronic resources and license expression
  • Actively engage in the development of the ONIX
    license messaging specification
  • http//www.niso.org/committees/License_expression/
    LicenseEx_comm.html

54
ONIX for Licensing Terms
  • Electronic communication of usage terms between
    publishers and libraries
  • ONIX Publisher License format (ONIX-PL)
  • Most recent draft March 2, 2007
  • Goal of first stable version by June 2007

55
Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules
ERMs
  • White paper January 17, 2007
  • Prepared by subcommittee of DLF ERM initiative
  • Investigation to determine the feasibility of
    propagating financial data across platforms with
    same or different ERMs and ILS
  • http//www.haverford.edu/library/DLF_ERMS_white_pa
    per.pdf

56
Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU)
  • Working group
  • Charge develop recommended practices to sell
    e-resources without licenses if they feel their
    perception of risk has been adequately addressed
    by current law and developing norms of behavior
  • http//www.niso.org/committees/SERU

57
SERU How will it work
  • Forego license rely on shared understanding
  • Orders placed through vendors such as serial
    agents or consortia
  • SERU will be posted on NISO website
  • NISO registry for publishers and libraries
  • FAQ on the NISO SERU website

58
Managing Journal Article Versions
  • Mary Bailey
  • Serials Electronic Resource Librarian
  • Kansas State University Libraries
  • KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007
  • Topeka, Kansas

59
Print Journal
  • Easy to know what you had
  • Dated, volume and issue numbers
  • Specific journal tangible- physical piece
  • Didnt change

60
Online Journal
  • Published version
  • Enhanced version
  • Corrected version
  • Self Archived
  • Draft, pre-print, post-print
  • Different versions submitted to multiple journals
  • What is the definitive version?

61
Publishers discussion
  • 2000 article in Learned Publishing, Defining and
    Certifying Electronic Publication in Science -
    Proposed that the only meaningful version was the
    Definitive version
  • 2005 Sally Morris CEO of ALPSP proposed a working
    group of NISO/ALPSP members to explore issues
    about version and standard terminology

62
Working Groups goals
  • Determine a set of use cases to work from
  • Define a set of terms that all can use

63
WG Recommendations (12/16/06)
  • Terms and definitions for journal article
    versions
  • Explanation of project background
  • Set of use cases
  • Comments received
  • Propose that terms be disseminated by NISO/ASPSP
  • http//www.niso.org/committees/Journal_versioning/
    Journal_Ver_comm.html

64
Proposed Terms and Definitions
  • Authors original
  • Accepted manuscript
  • Proof
  • Version of record
  • Corrected version of record
  • Enhanced version of record

65
Authors original
  • Version considered by author to be of sufficient
    quality to be submitted for review by a second
    party.
  • Can be prior to formal review for publication.
  • Author accepts full responsibility for article.
  • Content and layout set by author

66
Accepted Manuscript
  • Version has been accepted for publication in a
    journal
  • Publisher takes responsibility for article
  • Content and layout as submitted by author

67
Proof
  • Version created as part of the publication
    process
  • Includes copy-edited manuscript, galley proofs,
    page proof and revised proofs.
  • Content has been changed, layout is now publishers

68
Version of record
  • Version made available by any organization acting
    as publisher
  • Includes early release articles

69
Corrected version of record
  • Version of record in which errors in the version
    of record have been corrected.
  • Can be publishers, authors, or processing errors

70
Enhanced version of record
  • Version of record that has been updated or
    enhanced by the provision of supplementary
    material

71
Last points
  • Date stamps, version numbers and metadata records
    could be used to differentiate versions that may
    have several iterations.
  • Relationships need to be codified though the
    retrospective act of including an unambiguous
    reference or link within the metadata of a
    previous version to the version of record.

72
  • Value-adding process relationships
  • (dissemination/publishing family)
  • Authors Original
  • 2. Accepted Manuscript
  • 3. Proof
  • 4. Version of Record
  • 5. Corrected or Enhanced Version of Record

Conceptual provenance relationships (citation
family) Working papers
Blog entry Tech. Report Presentation
73
Assumptions In todays world
  • Any of the content objects (versions) in the
    previous graphic can be public
  • Any of the versions can reside in identical form
    in multiple places
  • All of these versions should have metadata that
    links it to the related objects
  • Contents objects in the conceptual family can
    become (move to) dissemination publishing objects

74
NISO/ALPSP Working Group
  • The Working Groups goal is to have a final draft
    available for public review in early 2007.

75
Sources
  • NISO/SLPSP Working Group on Versions of Journal
    Articles http//www.niso.org/committees/Journal_ve
    rsion/JournalVer_comm.html
  • Peter McCracken. Managing Journal Article
    Versions Across the Lifecycle. Presented at the
    NISO Managing Electronic Collections Solutions
    Forum. Retrieved October 27, 2006 from
    http//www.niso.org/news/events_workshops/Collecti
    ons-06-Agenda.html
  • Todd Carpenter. Standards Column Toward a
    Terminology of Journal Article Versions. Against
    the Grain 18, no. 6 79-80

76
OpenURL
  • Mary Bailey
  • Serials Electronic Resource Librarian
  • Kansas State University Libraries
  • KLA Tri-Conference - April 10, 2007
  • Topeka, Kansas

77
What is OpenURL?
  • Type of URL containing resource metadata
    primarily used by libraries
  • Implemented by information providers by
    dynamically inserting an appropriate base URL
    into web pages sent to an authenticated user

78
Base URL in Version 0.1
  • Consists of institutional link servers address
    and a query string
  • http//pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi?
  • Genrebookisbn0836218310 titleTheFarSideGal
    lery3

79
OpenURL Version 1.0
  • http//pulsar.lib.ksu.edu/cgi?url_verZ39.88-2004
    rft_val_fmtinfoofi/fmtkevbookrft.isbn0836218
    310rft.btitleTheFarSideGallery3
  • Most database vendors use one of these or a
    hybrid of the two, but you can expect to see the
    older version disappear

80
OpenURL Standards
  • Allows the user to access the appropriate copy
    with fewer clicks by
  • Packaging metadata and identifiers describing the
    information object and
  • Sending this package to a link-resolution server
    or resolver

81
Link Resolver Knowledge Base
  • Is the brain
  • Database of all the holdings in a collection
  • Contains journal coverage
  • Embargos
  • Tracks movement of titles between publishers

82
Knowledge Base Extended Services
  • Check local holdings for other formats (print,
    microform, etc.)
  • Link to and populate ILL form on the OPAC
  • Link to book reviews or articles that cite the
    current resource

83
Branding
  • Link resolvers allow a library to create branding
  • On your own library pages
  • Match on Publishers databases

84
(No Transcript)
85
(No Transcript)
86
OpenURL standards 1.0
  • What our users expect
  • Not quite one click, but certainly closer
  • Eliminates frustration of non-authorization
  • Link resolvers provide the added value of
    extended services

87
Sources
  • Ann Apps and Ross MacIntyre. Why OpenURL? D-Lib
    Magazine 12, no. 5. Retrieved Mar. 26, 2007 from
    http//www.dlib.org/dlib/may06/apps/05apps.html
  • Open URL Framework for Context Sensitive
    Services http//www.niso.org/committees/committee_
    ax.htm
  • Ross Singer. Helping You Buy Link Resolver
    Tools. Computers in Libraries 26, no. 215-23
  • Wikipedia, OpenURL http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op
    enURL

88
Electronic Resource Management COUNTER and SUSHI
  • Anne Liebst, Washburn University
  • Tri-Conference 2007
  • April 10, 2007

89
Librarians need meaningful statistics from
electronic databases/journals
  • Assess the value of different online
    products/services
  • Make better-informed purchasing decisions
  • Plan infrastructure and allocation of resources
  • Support internal marketing and promotion of
    library services.

90
Vendors require online usage statistics
  • Experiment with new pricing models
  • New product development
  • Plan infrastructure, improve website design and
    navigation
  • Obtain improved market analysis and demographics.

91
New ways to answer classic questions
  • Which titles should be in our collections?
  • Which titles should we cancel?
  • Which titles should we add?
  • Is this collection a good value?

92
What is COUNTER?
  • Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic
    Resources
  • Located in the United Kingdom
  • Formally launched in March 2002
  • Leading initiative in the field
  • Objective is to develop an agreed upon
    international Codes of Practice governing the
    recording and exchange of online usage data
  • http//www.projectcounter.org

93
Usage reports
  • Because usage records are generated from one
    platform to another
  • COUNTER compliance will be a guiding principle
    for usage that should be reported
  • Encourages the use of standards for data
    collection by ERM systems.

94
Usage Reports
  • Full-text article requests by month and journal
    title
  • Turnaways by month and journal title
  • Number of item requests by month, journal title
    and page type
  • Total searches and sessions by month and
    database
  • Total searches, sessions and full-text requests
    by month and database
  • Turnaways by month and database
  • Searches and sessions by month and service.

95
(No Transcript)
96
What is SUSHI?
  • Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting
    Initiative
  • Protocol and proposed standard that can be used
    by ERM and other systems to automate the
    transport of COUNTER formatted usage statistics
  • Standard client/server web services SOAP (Simple
    Object Access Protocol) request/response for the
    XML version of the COUNTER report.

97
Simply put
  • It is the Z39.93 protocol that defines an
    automated request and response model for the
    harvesting of electronic resource usage data
    utilizing a web services framework that can
    replace the user-mediated collection of usage
    data reports
  • Designed to work with Project COUNTER reports,
    the protocol is also extensible to other types of
    usage reports.

98
What are the benefits?
  • It automates a tedious and repetitive process
    current practice calls for library staff to go to
    each individual publishers website and retrieve
    statistical data
  • In some cases it is COUNTER compliant and in
    other cases it is not
  • SUSHI automates the process and, by default,
    causes the publisher to put usage data into a
    standard format.

99
What are the benefits?
  • The protocol is designed to be one report at a
    time, so requesting libraries simply make a
    separate request for each report needed
  • Results can be aggregated by the requesting
    library using their ERM system
  • Set a time and a day and your reports are
    automated
  • You do not need an ERM system to use SUSHI, any
    software that can initiate a web service that can
    use the SUSHI WSDL and Schema will work.

100
Test it out at
  • http//www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.ht
    ml

101
  • Thank you!
  • Mary Bailey, Kansas State University
  • Dalene Hawthorne, Emporia State University
  • Anne Liebst, Washburn University
About PowerShow.com