Report on the Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource

Document Sample
Report on the Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Powered By Docstoc
					 Report on the Digital Library Federation
Electronic Resource Management Initiative




              Adam Chandler
          Cornell University Library


         Charleston Conference, November 4, 2004
                                                   1
         Presentation Outline

•   DLF ERMI goals
•   Deliverables
•   Who is building ERM systems?
•   Outstanding issues
•   (If time: challenges of license exchange)



                                            2
Executive Summary, Digital Library Federation
Electronic Resource Management Initiative
Report, August 2004:

 "As libraries have worked to incorporate electronic
   resources into their collections, services and
   operations, most have found their existing Integrated
   Library Systems to lack important functionality to
   support these new resources. An earlier study (Jewell
   2001) determined that a number of libraries had
   begun developing local systems to overcome these
   shortcomings, and the DLF Electronic Resource
   Management Initiative (ERMI) was organized to aid
   the rapid development of such systems by providing
   a series of inter-related documents to define needs
   and to help establish data standards."

                                                      3
 DLF ERMI Goals (Oct. 2002)
• 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

                                                4
       “Misery loves company”
“The three most cited challenges were workload
  (ensuring sufficient staffing levels to cope
  with increasing numbers of electronic
  resources), the need for an electronic
  resources management module to assist in
  managing and tracking electronic
  resources, and the accessing and
  cataloging of electronic resources” [February
  2004 survey, reported in Managing Electronic
  Resources (August 2004), ARL Spec Kit #282, pp. 13-
  14].
                                                        5
     DLF ERMI Steering Group
•   Ivy Anderson (Harvard)
•   Adam Chandler (Cornell University)
•   Sharon Farb (UCLA)
•   Tim Jewell (Chair, University of Washington)
•   Kimberly Parker (Yale)
•   Angela Riggio (UCLA)
•   Nathan Robertson (Johns Hopkins)


                                                   6
     DLF ERMI Deliverables
         (August 2004)
• Problem Definition/Road Map (lead: Tim)
• Functional Requirements (lead: Ivy)
• Workflow Diagram (lead: Kim)
• Entity Relationship Diagram for Electronic
  Resource Management (lead: Nathan)
• Data Element Dictionary (lead: Angela)
• Electronic Resources Management System
  Data Structure (lead: Kim)
• XML Investigation (lead: Adam)
                                               7
       Vendor Initiatives (1)
• Innovative Interfaces: “ERM” module
  released Spring 2004; over 60 sold to III
  customers, with a handful of stand alone
  (non-III) customers, including Cornell, NYU,
  SUNY Buffalo, Library of Congress, Utah
  State and Stanford
  – “In creating this product, Innovative has taken care
    to comply with the DLF‟s (Digital Library
    Federation) emerging standard for describing
    electronic resources”

                                                       8
       Vendor Initiatives (2)
• ExLibris: “Verde” product announced; release
  planned by end of 2004
  – “From the outset, Verde was planned to address
    the requirements of the Digital Library Federation
    electronic resource management initiative (DLF
    ERMI; see
    http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/ho
    me.html). The Verde system extends these
    requirements, particularly in its approach to library
    consortia and its provision of cost-analysis tools.”

                                                        9
       Vendor Initiatives (3)
• VTLS “Verify”
  – Product and rapid development plan announced
  – FRBR implementation
  – Linking product marketing to NISO "Views"
    (Vendor Initiative for Enabling Web Services)
    DYNIX, Endeavor, Fretwell-Downing, Index Data,
    MuseGlobal, NISO, OCLC, VTLS, Talis
    (http://www.niso.org/committees/VIEWS/VIEWS_d
    oc_log.html)


                                                10
       Vendor Initiatives (4)
• Endeavor: “Meridian” product announced at
  ALA Annual 2004, expected in 2005
  (http://www.endinfosys.com/meridian); stay
  for Part 2 to learn more
  – “The system‟s functionality is guided by the
    requirements outlined by the Digital Library
    Federation‟s Electronic Resource Management
    Initiative and interacts with integrated library
    systems, like Endeavor‟s Voyager, for MARC and
    acquisitions data.”

                                                   11
      Vendor Initiatives (5)
• Dynix: ERM White Paper available on
  the Dynix Web site, product expected
  4th quarter 2005
  – “Dynix is a member of the DLF ERMI
    Vendor Reactor Panel and believes that
    participation in the DLF ERMI will not only
    help accelerate the introduction of ERM
    solutions, but will also promote industry
    interoperability.”

                                                  12
       Vendor Initiatives (6)

• SIRSI: appears to be integrating ERM
  functions into existing modules
  (prototype shown at ALA)
• Serials Solutions: a subset of ERM
  functionality will be built into their online
  management client


                                              13
      Library and Consortia
          Developments
• Colorado Alliance (“Gold Rush”): see
  Part 2 of this panel
• Johns Hopkins HERMES: open source,
  but may or may not be maintained and
  developed
• UCLA “Erdb”: UC System evaluating
  alternatives, including possible Erdb
  expansion, III ERM, and Ex Libris Verde

                                        14
  For more information, see:

Ellen Finnie Duranceau, “Electronic
  Resource Management Systems From
  ILS Vendors,” Against the Grain,
  September 2004, pp. 91-94.




                                      15
 Outstanding ERM Issues (1)

• Consortia Support and Functionality
  – The focus of work of the Initiative has been
    on the needs of individual libraries, rather
    than those of the library consortia to which
    so many libraries now belong.
• Usage Data
  – Project Counter XML DTD is likely to be
   the basis for usage statistics exchange

                                               16
 Outstanding ERM Issues (2)
• Serials Description and Holdings
  – NISO/EDItEUR Joint Working Party for the
    Exchange of Serials Subscription Information
• Standard Identifiers
  – A single global e-resource identification system or
    registry for packages, providers, and interfaces
    could make it possible to exchange certain kinds
    of information far more reliably and precisely than
    at present.


                                                      17
   Outstanding ERM Issues (3)
• Typed data dictionary
   – NISO is likely to be the forum for development of a
     DLF ERMI-based data dictionary of licensing
     elements
• Interoperability
   – Watch for “VIEWS” initiative: DYNIX, Endeavor,
     Fretwell-Downing, Index Data, MuseGlobal, NISO,
     OCLC, VTLS, Talis
     (http://www.niso.org/committees/VIEWS/VIEWS_d
     oc_log.html)
   – See also: Digital Library Federation‟s OCKHAM
     Reference Model
     (http://wiki.osuosl.org/display/OCKPub/ORMIntro) 18
   Appendix F: Why 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.

                                              19
      ERMI Use Case Elements

 Fair Use Clause Indicator       Course Reserve Print
 Citation Requirement Details    Course Reserve Electronic /
 Display                        Cached Copy
 Digitally Copy                  Electronic Link Permission
 Print Copy                      Course Pack Print
 Scholarly Sharing               Course Pack Electronic
 Distance Education              Remote Access
 ILL Print or Fax                Walk-in Users
 ILL Secure Electronic           Authorized User Groups
Transmission                      Authorized Locations
 ILL Electronic

                                                            20
         ODRL vs. XrML (MPEG-21/5)


             ODRL                                       XrML
“does not determine . . .             “licenses can be interpreted and
   requirements of any trusted            enforced by the consumption
   services . . . that utilize its        application.”*
   language.”                         “How will the industry benefit from
“does not enforce or mandate any          XrML? Enables the creation of new
                                          revenue streams based on the ability
   policies for DRM.”
                                          to control the use and access of
“has no license requirements and is       digital content and services”
   available in the spirit of „open   “a portfolio of patented technologies. . . .
   source‟ software.”                     if you use XrML in a context covered
                                          by the ContentGuard patents, then
                                          there may be a fee.”

                                           * Key discussion point
                                                                          21
XML Container Model with
         REL

  XML

        Rights Expression Language

         First: map data   Second: extend to
         values to REL     other data
         terms             dictionaries



                                               22
                              ODRL

<o-ex:agreement>
   <o-ex:asset>                                A Rights Expression
      <!--Title information, etc.-->
                                               Language (REL) is "a
      <!--description outside ODRL scope-->
   </o-ex:asset>                               different kind of language; it
   <o-ex:context>                              is a formal language like
      <!--Information about the agreement-->
   </o-ex:context>
                                               mathematics or like
   <o-ex:permission>                           programming code; it is
      <o-dd:display />                         language that can be
      <o-dd:print />
      <o-dd:lend>
                                               executed as an algorithm"
         <o-ex:constraint>                     [Coyle 2003].
             <o-dd:count>5</o-dd:count>
         </o-ex:constraint>
      </o-dd:lend>
   </o-ex:permission>
</o-ex:agreement>                                                       23
    ERMI Extensions to ODRL


<o-ex:agreement>
   <o-ex:permission>
      <!--explicit permissions-->
      <ermi:illprintorfax />
      <ermi:pcoursepack />
   </o-ex:permission>
   <ermi:assumed-permission>
      <o-dd:print />
      <o-dd:display />
      <ermi:scholarlysharing />
   </ermi:assumed-permission>
</o-ex:agreement>
                                    24
         ERMI Permission Values
         via “out of the box” ODRL

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

                                     25
    Primary Concerns about ODRL

Formidable learning curve
REL inability to distinguish prohibitions from
 silence means unnecessary loss of necessary
 information
“silence=denial” means extra work to identify
 and explicitly state all assumed permissions:
 this is the mirror image of our current license
 management, which assumes that what is not
 explicitly prohibited is allowed (i.e., “fair use”)
“Assumed permissions” extensions don‟t mesh
 with ODRL processing model
                                                  26
XML Container Model
   without REL

XML


      Application Profile
          Elements       Elements
          from data      from data
          dictionary 1   dictionary 2


                                        27
       Characteristics 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/intro.html

                                                                            28
   Three license use cases vying
          for our attention

1. Library to library communication
   (including consortial relationships)
2. Vendor to library communication (with
   library oversight of content control)
3. Vendor to device (without library
   oversight of content control)*
* “licenses can be interpreted and enforced by the
consumption application.”                            29
            Thank you

           Adam Chandler
         alc28@cornell.edu

http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/
                                                    30
31