Report on the Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Management Initiative

1
Report on the Digital Library Federation
Electronic Resource Management Initiative

• Adam Chandler
• Cornell University Library
• Charleston Conference, November 4, 2004

2
Presentation Outline

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

3
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."

4
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

5
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.

6
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)

7
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)

8
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 DLFs (Digital Library
  Federation) emerging standard for describing
  electronic resources

9
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.corne
  ll.edu/cts/elicensestudy/home.html). The Verde
  system extends these requirements, particularly
  in its approach to library consortia and its
  provision of cost-analysis tools.

10
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_doc_lo
  g.html)

11
Vendor Initiatives (4)

• Endeavor Meridian product announced at ALA
  Annual 2004, expected in 2005 (http//www.endinfos
  ys.com/meridian) stay for Part 2 to learn more
• The systems functionality is guided by the
  requirements outlined by the Digital Library
  Federations Electronic Resource Management
  Initiative and interacts with integrated library
  systems, like Endeavors Voyager, for MARC and
  acquisitions data.

12
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.

13
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

14
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

15
For more information, see

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

16
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

17
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.

18
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_doc_log.html)
• See also Digital Library Federations OCKHAM
  Reference Model (http//wiki.osuosl.org/display/OC
  KPub/ORMIntro)

19
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.

20
ERMI Use Case Elements
21
ODRL 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.

Key discussion point
22
XML Container Model with REL
XML
Rights Expression Language
First map data values to REL terms
Second extend to other data dictionaries
23
ODRL

• 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

A Rights Expression Language (REL) is "a
different kind of language it is a formal
language like mathematics or like programming
code it is language that can be executed as an
algorithm" Coyle 2003.
24
ERMI 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

25
ERMI Permission Values
via out of the box ODRL

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

26
Primary Concerns about ODRL

• Formidable learning curve
• REL inability to distinguish prohibitions from
  silence means unnecessary loss of necessary
  information
• silencedenial 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 dont mesh with
  ODRL processing model

27
XML Container Model without REL
XML
Application Profile
Elements from data dictionary 1
Elements from data dictionary 2
28
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/int
ro.html
29
Three license use cases vying for our attention

• Library to library communication (including
  consortial relationships)
• Vendor to library communication (with library
  oversight of content control)
• Vendor to device (without library oversight of
  content control)

licenses can be interpreted and enforced by
the consumption application.
30

• Thank you
• Adam Chandler
• alc28_at_cornell.edu
• http//www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/

31
(No Transcript)