I feel that I learned so much this semester. I wish I could look back at the pre-quiz we took on the first day, because I really knew nothing about electronic resources at the beginning of the semester.
It was so interesting and inspiring to learn how much librarians have taken upon themselves in this field. The entire spectrum of skills needed to manage electronic resources includes knowledge about copyrights and licensing, creating ERMS, developing and understanding standards, wrangling the linkage and searching issues, and keeping track of all the various and interrelated players. In addition, librarians not only manage the intricacies of ER, but also remain vigilant in ensuring that commercial publishers and aggregators don't call all the shots. In this age of intellectual property, publishers of digital content do their best to make it easy to follow their ownership model--for example, Apple and iTunes. Nothing is easier than getting all your music within the closed system of the iPod/iTune. Just a little click does it, which leads to consumer complacency. The same concept applies to scholarly information. Giant aggregators and publishing monopolies make it so much easier just to buy everything from them, and have it all fall into place at the click of a button, It is more convenient to purchase documents on a pay-per-view basis instead of negotiating licenses that allow interlibrary loans. It is safer to purchase copyright permission instead of risking infringement suits. It is less time-consuming to purchase all of the libraries information systems from one source than it is to work together to ensure interoperability by standards.
Electronic resources are at the heart of academic librarianship, and I think anyone who works in an academic library or uses an academic library is affected by the issues that surround electronic resources. Rising subscription costs, bundling of journals, technology monopolies, the loss of smaller independent publishers, restrictions on interlibrary loan and fair use, and erosion of the first sale doctrine are threats to academic scholarship and research, and are detrimental to the social good that copyright law was originally meant to protect. Just because it is easier to pay for privileges than it is to stand up for rights, doesn't mean we should give them up. The unique role of facilitating information exchange between commercial digital publishers and the public puts the electronic resource librarian in a key position to affect the future of digital rights.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Unit 14: Perpetual Access
This unit deals with two unfortunate facts using electronic journal subscriptions and digital information to fill library collections. First, the material is not owned by libraries, so libraries may not continue to have access to material they subscribed to in the past. Second, information stored in digital form can be difficult to preserve. Digital archiving is faced with problems of breakdown and obsolescence of storage media. In addition, some forms of digital information can be very difficult to archive. This includes large multi-faceted objects, e.g. databases, and digital communications, such as blogs.
The Watson chapter in this week's readings observed that many libraries do not make selections based on whether perpetual access will be part of the licensed rights to the material, or inclusion of a print counterpart. Patrons are not as interested in problems of preservation as they are in electronic access to current content. Tight budgets may dictate giving up print+electronic resources in favor of electronic-only resources, if that is less expensive. The chapter gave the example of choosing to subscribe from an aggregator for budgetary reasons, even though aggregators often do not offer perpetual access. Because libraries are under pressure from patron needs and budgets that can interfere with their mission of preservation, third parties are stepping in to fill the gap. Here are some of the organizations that are working to preserve digital information and heritage:
The Stemper & Barribeau article talked about the difference between perpetual access rights and archiving rights. Perpetual access means that you can continue to access a copy of the item, but not necessarily make and store your own copy. Archiving rights allow you to make your own copy.
The article spends time talking about the difference between Portico and LOCKSS, which I am still a little unclear on. Both provide the means to archive material, and both are founded by the Mellon Foundation. LOCKSS is a distributed system, while Portico is a centralized system. Libraries can use either. LOCKSS has looser control, and is less expensive. Publishers and libraries must pay annual fee to deposit into Portico. Portico restricts access to material, unless there is a trigger event, such as a natural disaster. I guess I would say that LOCKSS represents perpetual access/archiving, while Portico is archiving/conditional access.
Through surveys, the authors found that the majority of libraries do ask for perpetual access, but are willing to subscribe without it. The goal of the paper was to find out how many licenses included clauses for perpetual access. The UW-Madison and University of Minnesota have a policy of asking for perpetual access if it is not included in the license. (Note--just these two? Why does the study mention UW-Madison, when it used data from U of Minnesota?) The study of licenses signed by University of Minnesota. It found that the majority of publishers will offer perpetual access, and commercial publishers are more likely than scholarly publishers to offer it.
The lessons that I take from the readings are that librarians that work with electronic resources should be aware of access and preservation issues, and what the difference is between access and preservation. Publishers are not naturally interested in either, unless there are dollar signs or useful services attached. It falls to libraries to push for perpetual access to subscribed material, putting pressure on publishers to provide it. Third party programs like LOCKSS are good way to combine issues of preservation and perpetual access, while programs like Portico are a good way to lure publishers into depositing their material for archival, by providing a backup to their material and a secure location to keep it in.
References:
Jennifer Watson (2008) “Preservation Concerns in the E-Resources Environment” in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 45-63.
2. Library of Congress Speaker Series: Eileen Fenton “Portico: An Electronic Archiving Service” 45 minute video http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3863
3. Stemper, J. & Barribeau, S. (2006). “Perpetual Access to Electronic Journals: A Survey of One Academic Research Library‟s Licenses.” Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 91-109.
4. Seadle, Michael1 (2006). “A Social Model for Archiving Digital Serials: LOCKSS.” Serials Review, 32(2), 73-77.
The Watson chapter in this week's readings observed that many libraries do not make selections based on whether perpetual access will be part of the licensed rights to the material, or inclusion of a print counterpart. Patrons are not as interested in problems of preservation as they are in electronic access to current content. Tight budgets may dictate giving up print+electronic resources in favor of electronic-only resources, if that is less expensive. The chapter gave the example of choosing to subscribe from an aggregator for budgetary reasons, even though aggregators often do not offer perpetual access. Because libraries are under pressure from patron needs and budgets that can interfere with their mission of preservation, third parties are stepping in to fill the gap. Here are some of the organizations that are working to preserve digital information and heritage:
- JSTOR: On its website, JSTOR describes itself as a "not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers and students discover use and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive of over one thousand academic journals and other scholarly content." Libraries subscribe to archived collections held in JSTOR.
- LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe): LOCKSS is an open source software that libraries can use to store content from publishers. Permission needs to be written into the license by the publisher before the library can deposit content. The LOCKSS software crawls the publisher site to pull in content. Libraries have perpetual access to content, and the presence of multiple copies helps with preservation.
- Portico: A centralized storage service. Participating libraries and publishers pay a fee to deposit content. Access terms are vague. Is better as a preservation model than a perptual access model
- Google Book Search: Massive digitization project through Google. Preservation librarians do not necessarily feel that relying on Google Books is good preservation practice, because G-digitized books have been seen to have digitization errors. Also, Google is a for-profit company which may have long-term drawbacks for preservation issues.
- PubMed Central (PMC): From its website, PMC is "The U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature. Archives content from some online journals and provides it free of change
The Stemper & Barribeau article talked about the difference between perpetual access rights and archiving rights. Perpetual access means that you can continue to access a copy of the item, but not necessarily make and store your own copy. Archiving rights allow you to make your own copy.
The article spends time talking about the difference between Portico and LOCKSS, which I am still a little unclear on. Both provide the means to archive material, and both are founded by the Mellon Foundation. LOCKSS is a distributed system, while Portico is a centralized system. Libraries can use either. LOCKSS has looser control, and is less expensive. Publishers and libraries must pay annual fee to deposit into Portico. Portico restricts access to material, unless there is a trigger event, such as a natural disaster. I guess I would say that LOCKSS represents perpetual access/archiving, while Portico is archiving/conditional access.
Through surveys, the authors found that the majority of libraries do ask for perpetual access, but are willing to subscribe without it. The goal of the paper was to find out how many licenses included clauses for perpetual access. The UW-Madison and University of Minnesota have a policy of asking for perpetual access if it is not included in the license. (Note--just these two? Why does the study mention UW-Madison, when it used data from U of Minnesota?) The study of licenses signed by University of Minnesota. It found that the majority of publishers will offer perpetual access, and commercial publishers are more likely than scholarly publishers to offer it.
The lessons that I take from the readings are that librarians that work with electronic resources should be aware of access and preservation issues, and what the difference is between access and preservation. Publishers are not naturally interested in either, unless there are dollar signs or useful services attached. It falls to libraries to push for perpetual access to subscribed material, putting pressure on publishers to provide it. Third party programs like LOCKSS are good way to combine issues of preservation and perpetual access, while programs like Portico are a good way to lure publishers into depositing their material for archival, by providing a backup to their material and a secure location to keep it in.
References:
Jennifer Watson (2008) “Preservation Concerns in the E-Resources Environment” in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 45-63.
2. Library of Congress Speaker Series: Eileen Fenton “Portico: An Electronic Archiving Service” 45 minute video http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=3863
3. Stemper, J. & Barribeau, S. (2006). “Perpetual Access to Electronic Journals: A Survey of One Academic Research Library‟s Licenses.” Library Resources & Technical Services, 50(2), 91-109.
4. Seadle, Michael1 (2006). “A Social Model for Archiving Digital Serials: LOCKSS.” Serials Review, 32(2), 73-77.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Unit 13: A day in the life of an electronic resources librarian
Curiouser and curiouser...
Managing electronic resources certainly seems like it should be a full-time job onto itself.
If I were to guess, before reading the articles for this week, what a day in the life of an electronic resources librarian would be like, it would go something like this:
8a-9am Staff meeting. (there are always staff meetings).
9am-10am Teach citation management software class
11am-12pm Test links
12pm-1pm Take lunch. Wait, don't take lunch. Figure out why link resolver to database is not working. Call system admin. Find out that problem is with publisher. Stay on hold while it is sorted out.
1pm-2pm. Web conference with vendor to discuss latest additions to their subscription package.
2pm-3pm Go to gym, get a massage. Ha ha, just kidding. Budget meeting
3pm-4pm Start trying to decide which subscriptions to cancel now that budget is even smaller
4pm-4:15pm Lunch at last!
4:15 to 5pm Webinar on latest COUNTER standard
5 pm to 6 pm. Work with usage statistics to create report for meeting next week
According to the Albitz & Shelburne article, the primary responsibilities of an ER librarian as described in 2000/2001 surveys are: ER Coordination, purchase management, acquisition, renewals and cancellations, license and pricing negotiations, and troubleshooting technical problems. Newer responsibilities that ER librarians noted in the 2005 survey include link-resolver maintenance, coordination or trials of projects and usage statistics management.
An interesting point brought up in this article is that non of the ER librarians surveyed reported having a background in ER management. ER management is still a new and developing field. Very likely more and more MLS graduates will have received some training in ER management.
Other main points of the Albitz & Shelburne article are that being an ER librarian is kind of like being through the looking glass, because job duties are so quickly evolving and changing, and ER staff may feel removed the reality of other library staff. In addition, job descriptions for ER librarians are often overambitious and unrealistic, and do not describe what ER librarians actually do.
I found a sample posting for an "Electronic Management Resource Librarian" posted in Against the Grain for a position at Colorado State University. It did indeed contain a very long and intimidating list of job responsibilities. All responsibilities are very much related to the management of electronic resources, suggesting that it has grown into its own as a position since the surveys mentioned. The posting only asked for two years of experience with electronic resource management, which is not all that much. Other qualifications include knowledge of database structure (yay, SLIS751) and computer logic (hmm...need to take some DoIT classes) and electronic document delivery.
Curiously, the next article, "How to Survive as a new Serialist," recommends that new ER librarians carefully peruse their job description for hints of what to actually do. Other useful hints from this article include:
Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A business model
In this chapter, Afifi describes the use of process mapping to document and improve electronic resources acquisition workflow. I took the Health Information Systems class that is cross listed with Industrial Engineering, and we spent a lot of time talking about the use of engineering and business tools to evaluate work processes in information systems. My impression was, and is, that although these tools seem silly and oversimplistic (i.e. documenting a process in little steps, with swim lanes) that actually they provide really valuable feedback on how a workflow functions, and what can be done to improve it. Breaking big, complicated, multi-doer tasks into smaller pieces for analysis by a predetermined model works very well. I think that using process mapping to analyze electronic resource management is a great idea. Also, engineering students are a good resource for a library to utilize. Projects where students apply engineering principles to workflows can be helpful, and don't cost anything.
The chapter contains some nice diagrams on Electronic Resource workflow, worth keeping around. I think that they would fit well into the survival guide for serialists.
References:
1. Rebecca S. Albitz, Wendy Allen Shelbern (2007) “Marian Through the Looking Glass: The Unique Evolution of the Electronic Resources (ER) Librarian Position” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword, pp 15-30.
2. Glenda Griffin (2009) “How to survive as a new serialist” Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein.
http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.18.1
3. Afifi, M. “Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A Lesson From Business Models” Chapter 6 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
Managing electronic resources certainly seems like it should be a full-time job onto itself.
If I were to guess, before reading the articles for this week, what a day in the life of an electronic resources librarian would be like, it would go something like this:
8a-9am Staff meeting. (there are always staff meetings).
9am-10am Teach citation management software class
11am-12pm Test links
12pm-1pm Take lunch. Wait, don't take lunch. Figure out why link resolver to database is not working. Call system admin. Find out that problem is with publisher. Stay on hold while it is sorted out.
1pm-2pm. Web conference with vendor to discuss latest additions to their subscription package.
2pm-3pm Go to gym, get a massage. Ha ha, just kidding. Budget meeting
3pm-4pm Start trying to decide which subscriptions to cancel now that budget is even smaller
4pm-4:15pm Lunch at last!
4:15 to 5pm Webinar on latest COUNTER standard
5 pm to 6 pm. Work with usage statistics to create report for meeting next week
According to the Albitz & Shelburne article, the primary responsibilities of an ER librarian as described in 2000/2001 surveys are: ER Coordination, purchase management, acquisition, renewals and cancellations, license and pricing negotiations, and troubleshooting technical problems. Newer responsibilities that ER librarians noted in the 2005 survey include link-resolver maintenance, coordination or trials of projects and usage statistics management.
An interesting point brought up in this article is that non of the ER librarians surveyed reported having a background in ER management. ER management is still a new and developing field. Very likely more and more MLS graduates will have received some training in ER management.
Other main points of the Albitz & Shelburne article are that being an ER librarian is kind of like being through the looking glass, because job duties are so quickly evolving and changing, and ER staff may feel removed the reality of other library staff. In addition, job descriptions for ER librarians are often overambitious and unrealistic, and do not describe what ER librarians actually do.
I found a sample posting for an "Electronic Management Resource Librarian" posted in Against the Grain for a position at Colorado State University. It did indeed contain a very long and intimidating list of job responsibilities. All responsibilities are very much related to the management of electronic resources, suggesting that it has grown into its own as a position since the surveys mentioned. The posting only asked for two years of experience with electronic resource management, which is not all that much. Other qualifications include knowledge of database structure (yay, SLIS751) and computer logic (hmm...need to take some DoIT classes) and electronic document delivery.
Curiously, the next article, "How to Survive as a new Serialist," recommends that new ER librarians carefully peruse their job description for hints of what to actually do. Other useful hints from this article include:
- Learn the ILS
- Don't panic
- Get training
- Learn about associations and go to conferences
- Discover resources on managing serials
- Be part of discussion groups
- Learn from colleagues
Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A business model
In this chapter, Afifi describes the use of process mapping to document and improve electronic resources acquisition workflow. I took the Health Information Systems class that is cross listed with Industrial Engineering, and we spent a lot of time talking about the use of engineering and business tools to evaluate work processes in information systems. My impression was, and is, that although these tools seem silly and oversimplistic (i.e. documenting a process in little steps, with swim lanes) that actually they provide really valuable feedback on how a workflow functions, and what can be done to improve it. Breaking big, complicated, multi-doer tasks into smaller pieces for analysis by a predetermined model works very well. I think that using process mapping to analyze electronic resource management is a great idea. Also, engineering students are a good resource for a library to utilize. Projects where students apply engineering principles to workflows can be helpful, and don't cost anything.
The chapter contains some nice diagrams on Electronic Resource workflow, worth keeping around. I think that they would fit well into the survival guide for serialists.
References:
1. Rebecca S. Albitz, Wendy Allen Shelbern (2007) “Marian Through the Looking Glass: The Unique Evolution of the Electronic Resources (ER) Librarian Position” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword, pp 15-30.
2. Glenda Griffin (2009) “How to survive as a new serialist” Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein.
http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.18.1
3. Afifi, M. “Process Mapping for Electronic Resources: A Lesson From Business Models” Chapter 6 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Unit 12: E-books:Audio and Text.
I actually have strong feelings on the subject of audio E-books. It makes me crazy that the Madison Public Library has so few audio E-books that are Mac compatible. I have been deploring this situation for a year. Now I finally understand it (at least the logistics, if not the overall business decision).
So, Madison Public Library uses OverDrive. OverDrive audio books come in a WMA format. The WMA format has DRM built in, and is not compatible with Apple. However, iPods have a huge share of market for portable audio file players. Because there is such a demand, Overdrive has started providing MP3 files for some books. Apparently the publishers have to agree to having their books available in this format, because the MP3 files are not DRM protected. So you can keep the MP3 file, burn them to cd, etc. After you have checked out a title for a week, a message starts popping up that looks like this:
It is a *soft restriction*, it discourages saving of the file. However, if you don't click delete, and click cancel instead, the item remains in your library (Note--I just tried this once. The prompt pops up every time, and I hit delete the next time around). Like most people, I am not all that interested in filling my media library up with books I have already listened to. I just want access in the first place.
An additional, interesting note is that Steve Jobs takes an anti-DRM stance, although iTunes/iPod also were using DRM protections, built in to the iTunes software. Jobs said that iTunes had to provide DRM protection, so that major labels would sell on iTunes. Currently iTunes has started selling DRM-free music, although it is still difficult to transfer music from ipod to ipod. Again, soft restrictions still exist.
Some of the readings for this week talked Overdrive and some of the other popular audio book providers that libraries can subscribe to. The articles evaluated the different providers through several different criteria.
The popular providers include:
The articles read for this unit provided evaluation for audio and ebook providers under a set of criteria. It seems important to note that things are rapidly changing, so a re-evaluation of all providers should be done. For example, in the 2007 article by Peters, Audible is said to have 14,000 audio books. Currently Audible's website claims 85,000 titles are available. And Peters notes that Overdrive only carries WMA format files, but currently Overdrive also provides some MP3 files.
Here are the criteria listed in the Peters article:
References:
Bruno, Antony. "Stop Throwing Stones." Billboard 117.17 (2005): 10. Print.
Gideon, Tim. "Apple's DRM-Free Music: 8 Things You should Know." ExtremeTech.com (2009)Print.
Thomas A. Peters “Comparison Points and Decision Points” Chapter 2 in Digital Auidobook Services through Libraries. Library Technology Reports vol 43 no 1. ALA Techsource, 2007.
Peters, T., Bell, L., & Sussman, D. B. (July/August 2005). “An Overview of Digital Audio Books for Libraries.” Computers in Libraries, 25(7), 6-8, 61-64.
Wolverton, Troy. "Jobs Assails Music Labels: APPLE CEO URGES INDUSTRY TO DROP COPY LIMITS." McClatchy - Tribune Business News (2007): 1. Print.
So, Madison Public Library uses OverDrive. OverDrive audio books come in a WMA format. The WMA format has DRM built in, and is not compatible with Apple. However, iPods have a huge share of market for portable audio file players. Because there is such a demand, Overdrive has started providing MP3 files for some books. Apparently the publishers have to agree to having their books available in this format, because the MP3 files are not DRM protected. So you can keep the MP3 file, burn them to cd, etc. After you have checked out a title for a week, a message starts popping up that looks like this:
It is a *soft restriction*, it discourages saving of the file. However, if you don't click delete, and click cancel instead, the item remains in your library (Note--I just tried this once. The prompt pops up every time, and I hit delete the next time around). Like most people, I am not all that interested in filling my media library up with books I have already listened to. I just want access in the first place.
An additional, interesting note is that Steve Jobs takes an anti-DRM stance, although iTunes/iPod also were using DRM protections, built in to the iTunes software. Jobs said that iTunes had to provide DRM protection, so that major labels would sell on iTunes. Currently iTunes has started selling DRM-free music, although it is still difficult to transfer music from ipod to ipod. Again, soft restrictions still exist.
Some of the readings for this week talked Overdrive and some of the other popular audio book providers that libraries can subscribe to. The articles evaluated the different providers through several different criteria.
The popular providers include:
- Audible http://www.audible.com/Over 85,000 titles available.
- Overdrive http://www.overdrive.com/. Integrates with ILS, MARC records provided. over 300,000 titles (includes ebooks, audio books, music and video). Madison Public Library offers about 5,000 titles of audio books in WMA format, and about 400 audio books in MP3 format.
- NetLibrary http://library.netlibrary.com/Home.aspx. 200,00 eBooks, over 5,000 audio books
- TumbleTalking Books and Read-a-longs. http://www.tumblebooks.com 400 titles. Unlimited use model. Subscribing libraries get a link (but do not own titles), Tumble provides support and maintenance of catalog.
- Playaway http://library.playaway.com/. Over 7400 titles available. 2500 titles available from Madison Public Library.
The articles read for this unit provided evaluation for audio and ebook providers under a set of criteria. It seems important to note that things are rapidly changing, so a re-evaluation of all providers should be done. For example, in the 2007 article by Peters, Audible is said to have 14,000 audio books. Currently Audible's website claims 85,000 titles are available. And Peters notes that Overdrive only carries WMA format files, but currently Overdrive also provides some MP3 files.
Here are the criteria listed in the Peters article:
- Number of titles, and rate of growth (or shrinkage)
- Collection strengths and focuses
- Age of content: Public domain titles, recent releases. etc.
- Content characteristics: Narrators, abridged vs. non abridged, sound quality
- Format: MP3, WMA, etc.
- Technical support
- Use model (library owned: one user/title or leased: one user/title or unlimited users)
- Statistics--are they provided?
- Licensing and agreement terms
- Cost components: annual fees, devices, etc.
- Administrative modules
- Integration with library system and collections
References:
Bruno, Antony. "Stop Throwing Stones." Billboard 117.17 (2005): 10. Print.
Gideon, Tim. "Apple's DRM-Free Music: 8 Things You should Know." ExtremeTech.com (2009)Print.
Thomas A. Peters “Comparison Points and Decision Points” Chapter 2 in Digital Auidobook Services through Libraries. Library Technology Reports vol 43 no 1. ALA Techsource, 2007.
Peters, T., Bell, L., & Sussman, D. B. (July/August 2005). “An Overview of Digital Audio Books for Libraries.” Computers in Libraries, 25(7), 6-8, 61-64.
Wolverton, Troy. "Jobs Assails Music Labels: APPLE CEO URGES INDUSTRY TO DROP COPY LIMITS." McClatchy - Tribune Business News (2007): 1. Print.
Unit 11: Finding content: Discovery tools
At last, thanks to Anna presentation and the talk from Judith, and in-class demonstrations, I kind of know how FindIt works.
Important concepts:
Knowledgebase
OpenURL
LinkResolver
FindIt is a link resolver for OpenURLs. Its brand name is SFX, from Ex libris. Link resolvers give libraries local control over OpenURLs, by directing user to copy of resource (or target) that is subscribed to (source) by the library. When users click the FindIt button, a query is placed into a knowledgebase. The knowledgebase contains detailed information about electronic resources, and the query finds its target there. The user is directed to the electronic resource that is licensed by the UW-Madison libraries. The link can vary in granularity. Sometimes you go straight to the article, but sometimes you are just taken to the journal and must search for the article. I think if there are multiple copies available, then you are presented with a list of target providers. If no electronic resource exists, the link resolver provides a link to a MadCat query that looks for the item in library holdings.
I also now understand what a DOI (digital object indentifier) is. DOI syntax is a NISO standard, that provides a uniform way for publishers to identify material at the article level. CrossRef is the biggest repository of DOIs. DOI is used extensively in publishing and works well as an identifier in OpenURLs. However, DOI is not used as much in libraries, because it points to THE COPY--the authoritative version from the publisher, whereas libraries want to point to their own copies.
Important concepts:
Knowledgebase
OpenURL
LinkResolver
FindIt is a link resolver for OpenURLs. Its brand name is SFX, from Ex libris. Link resolvers give libraries local control over OpenURLs, by directing user to copy of resource (or target) that is subscribed to (source) by the library. When users click the FindIt button, a query is placed into a knowledgebase. The knowledgebase contains detailed information about electronic resources, and the query finds its target there. The user is directed to the electronic resource that is licensed by the UW-Madison libraries. The link can vary in granularity. Sometimes you go straight to the article, but sometimes you are just taken to the journal and must search for the article. I think if there are multiple copies available, then you are presented with a list of target providers. If no electronic resource exists, the link resolver provides a link to a MadCat query that looks for the item in library holdings.
I also now understand what a DOI (digital object indentifier) is. DOI syntax is a NISO standard, that provides a uniform way for publishers to identify material at the article level. CrossRef is the biggest repository of DOIs. DOI is used extensively in publishing and works well as an identifier in OpenURLs. However, DOI is not used as much in libraries, because it points to THE COPY--the authoritative version from the publisher, whereas libraries want to point to their own copies.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Unit 10: Data Standards and Silos
Name these standards...
The readings this week focused on standards for data related to the management and use of electronic resources. Data standards facilitate cross-system data transfer, and storage of data. This takes us back to last week's unit, and Tim Jewel. Based on research by Tim Jewel indicating that libraries were growing their own ERMS, the DLF started the Electronic Resource Management Initiative. The major goal of the initiative was to develop a standard to keep track of licensing details. The readings this week discuss some of the standards that arose through groups like DLF and NISO, and where they are used in the life-cycle of an electronic resource.
Paushan Yue's article "Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources (ER)" starts with a look at the DLF ERMI. Tim Jewel's research into use of homegrown ERMs, and the Web Hub that he set up with Adam Chandler of Cornell University, prompted some big group meetings that included librarians, publishers, PAMS, vendors, and subscription agents. Everyone agreed that standards were needed in order for ERMS to be effective. DLF ERMI was formed to develop standards and define functional requirements for ERMS
In addition to DLF ERMI, Yeu talked about subsequent standardization initiatives for ERM:
Pesch provides detailed figures of the life cycle of an electronic resource, the information detail for each phase in the life cycle, and the standards being used to store and transfer the information. Life cycle phases include:
We read an article about COUNTER, which discussed some future directions for COUNTER, such as a JUF (Journal Use Factor) which would take usage measurements and use them to calculate a journals relevance and popularity.
References:
1. Todd Carpenter (2008) Improving Information Distribution Through Standards. Presentation at ER&L 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/20877 2. Oliver Pesch “Library Standards and E-Resource Management: A Survey of Current Initiatives and Standards Efforts.” The Serials Librarian, Vol 55 No 3, 2008, pp 481-486.
3. Paoshan W. Yue “Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword pp155-171.
4. Peter T. Shepard (2010) “Counter: Current Developments and Future Plans.”Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein. http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.23.1
Images:
ONYX image: By Simon Eugster --Simon 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
COUNTER image: By Biol (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Shirtless Mark Twain: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Twain-Shirtless-ca1883.jpg
SUSHI: By Lionel Allorge (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Applecore: By Philippe Proulx (Own work (Photo personnelle)) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
The readings this week focused on standards for data related to the management and use of electronic resources. Data standards facilitate cross-system data transfer, and storage of data. This takes us back to last week's unit, and Tim Jewel. Based on research by Tim Jewel indicating that libraries were growing their own ERMS, the DLF started the Electronic Resource Management Initiative. The major goal of the initiative was to develop a standard to keep track of licensing details. The readings this week discuss some of the standards that arose through groups like DLF and NISO, and where they are used in the life-cycle of an electronic resource.
Paushan Yue's article "Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources (ER)" starts with a look at the DLF ERMI. Tim Jewel's research into use of homegrown ERMs, and the Web Hub that he set up with Adam Chandler of Cornell University, prompted some big group meetings that included librarians, publishers, PAMS, vendors, and subscription agents. Everyone agreed that standards were needed in order for ERMS to be effective. DLF ERMI was formed to develop standards and define functional requirements for ERMS
In addition to DLF ERMI, Yeu talked about subsequent standardization initiatives for ERM:
- ONIX (Online Information Exchange)--Commonly used in the publishing trade. Adopted as standard for license information
- XML based Metadata--Identifying objects, making bibilographic MARC data into XML data. Library of Congress standards include MARCXML, MODS, and MADS
- OpenURL--Standard for dynamic linking, getting users to the right copy of content. Has sources, target and link resolver.
- NISO Metasearch Initiative--improving cross database searching.
- International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) Revision--Unique identifiers are needed for electronic resources. The ISSN had flaws: was not being universally used by publishers, and dealing with the issue of format. ISO working group trying to fix those problems.
- COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked ER)--An international effort to track online usage. Vendors who meet COUNTER guidelines can register themselves as COUNTER compliant.
Pesch provides detailed figures of the life cycle of an electronic resource, the information detail for each phase in the life cycle, and the standards being used to store and transfer the information. Life cycle phases include:
- Acquire (Title lists, license terms, order information, etc.)
- Provide access (A to Z lists, Proxy, Catalog, Link resolver etc.)
- Administer (Usage rights and restrictions, claims, holdings changes)
- Support (contacts, troubleshooting)
- Evaluate (Usage data, costs data)
- Renew (Title lists, business terms, invoices)
We read an article about COUNTER, which discussed some future directions for COUNTER, such as a JUF (Journal Use Factor) which would take usage measurements and use them to calculate a journals relevance and popularity.
References:
1. Todd Carpenter (2008) Improving Information Distribution Through Standards. Presentation at ER&L 2008. http://hdl.handle.net/1853/20877 2. Oliver Pesch “Library Standards and E-Resource Management: A Survey of Current Initiatives and Standards Efforts.” The Serials Librarian, Vol 55 No 3, 2008, pp 481-486.
3. Paoshan W. Yue “Standards for the Management of Electronic Resources” in Mark Jacobs (Ed) Electronic Resources Librarianship and Management of Digital Information: Emerging and Professional Roles, Binghamton NY: Hayword pp155-171.
4. Peter T. Shepard (2010) “Counter: Current Developments and Future Plans.”Chapter in The E-Resources Management Handbook. (2006-present) Editor Graham Stone, Rick Anderson, Jessica Feinstein. http://uksg.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1629/9552448-0-3.23.1
Images:
ONYX image: By Simon Eugster --Simon 14:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
COUNTER image: By Biol (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Shirtless Mark Twain: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Twain-Shirtless-ca1883.jpg
SUSHI: By Lionel Allorge (Own work) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Applecore: By Philippe Proulx (Own work (Photo personnelle)) [GFDL (www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Unit 9: Electronic Resources Managment Systems
Electronic Management Systems (ERMS) are confusing in their scope and variety. But necessary, because managing electronic resources is even more confusing in scope and variety. Managing large volumes of electronic resources is too complicated for spreadsheets and word documents and humans alone-- which poses a problem for librarians. A cohesive system that can manage all the tasks relating to electronic resource management is the ideal solution. Many different systems have evolved that manage these tasks, but none quite live up to the ideal, and almost all are named with an acronym of some sort.
What is an ERMS:
Wikipedia says it is a software system that keeps track of information about electronic resources.
What should an ERMS be able to do:
The Collins Chapter and the Hogarth and Bloom Chapter list some of the processes that can and should be handled with an ERMS:
The H& B chapter discusses of the needs that began to arise in the early 2000's. Libraries needed to create and maintain patron-accessible, searchable lists of their electronic resources, to save and share information about licensing, and track usage.
A variety of systems evolved to fill these needs, but information management needs kept getting bigger and more complex. It was important to not have to enter data in multiple places, and to be able to import it automatically. To do this, one needs standards!
Collins says that in the early 2000's the need for ERMS became pressing, as well as the need to develop standards for such said ERMS. Tim Jewel (University of Washington) did some key research into the issue of ERMS and standards for license information. He noticed that many libraries were cooking up their own ERMS, and that the variety of data forms was going to cause some long-run interoperability problems. Tim Jewel formed Web Hub in 2001 to provide a place for information exchange on ERMS by interested parties. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative was formed, and has been working on developing data standards for license agreements and administrative details. Some goals of DLF ERMI are to:
There are a variety of ERMS available for libraries to choose from. Each type has pros and cons associated with it. The Collins chapter lists some of these types and their strengths and weaknesses.
ERMS available from ILS vendors.
Examples: Endeaver's Meridian, Ex Libris' Verde, Innovative's ERM
Pros: Interoperability!
Cons: Overly dependent on a single vendor, and potential lack of a knowledge database
ERMS available from 3rd party vendors
Examples: Carls Gold Rush, Serials Solutions, TDnet TERM
Pros: knowledgebase, A to Z lists, link-resolvers
Cons: Integration with ILS and with tools from other 3rd parties
Homegrown ERMS
Pros: Tailored and customized
Cons: Time and staff intensive to develop and need ongoing tech support
In class we discussed ERMs and read an issue from Against the Grain that covered ERMS. A survey from Against the Grain noted that 75% of respondants use ERMS in their library. The top uses are:
UW Madison libraries use Ex Libris's VERDE ERM, Voyager ILS and SFX OpenURL link resolver.
References:
1. Maria D.D. Collins “ERM Systems: Background, Selection and Implementation, Chapter 10 in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 181-206.
2. Hogarth, M.; Bloom, V. “Chapter XVII: Panorama of Electronic Resource Management Systems” Chapter 17 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
3. ERM Special Reports (2010) Against the Grain, Vol 22, No 2
What is an ERMS:
Wikipedia says it is a software system that keeps track of information about electronic resources.
What should an ERMS be able to do:
The Collins Chapter and the Hogarth and Bloom Chapter list some of the processes that can and should be handled with an ERMS:
- Public Display
- License Management
- Collection Evaluation
- Statistical Analysis (usage, etc)
- Maintenance of multiple spreadsheets and databases
- Ability to generate A to Z lists
- Financial/purchasing (align publishers, handle renewals)
- Track processes of electronic resources through acquisition, purchasing, and licensing.
- Contact and Support
The H& B chapter discusses of the needs that began to arise in the early 2000's. Libraries needed to create and maintain patron-accessible, searchable lists of their electronic resources, to save and share information about licensing, and track usage.
A variety of systems evolved to fill these needs, but information management needs kept getting bigger and more complex. It was important to not have to enter data in multiple places, and to be able to import it automatically. To do this, one needs standards!
Collins says that in the early 2000's the need for ERMS became pressing, as well as the need to develop standards for such said ERMS. Tim Jewel (University of Washington) did some key research into the issue of ERMS and standards for license information. He noticed that many libraries were cooking up their own ERMS, and that the variety of data forms was going to cause some long-run interoperability problems. Tim Jewel formed Web Hub in 2001 to provide a place for information exchange on ERMS by interested parties. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative was formed, and has been working on developing data standards for license agreements and administrative details. Some goals of DLF ERMI are to:
- Provide XML Schema
- Create Data Dictionary
- Describe functional requirements of an ERM
- Identify and support data standards (like ONIX for license agreements, from EDItEUR)
There are a variety of ERMS available for libraries to choose from. Each type has pros and cons associated with it. The Collins chapter lists some of these types and their strengths and weaknesses.
ERMS available from ILS vendors.
Examples: Endeaver's Meridian, Ex Libris' Verde, Innovative's ERM
Pros: Interoperability!
Cons: Overly dependent on a single vendor, and potential lack of a knowledge database
ERMS available from 3rd party vendors
Examples: Carls Gold Rush, Serials Solutions, TDnet TERM
Pros: knowledgebase, A to Z lists, link-resolvers
Cons: Integration with ILS and with tools from other 3rd parties
Homegrown ERMS
Pros: Tailored and customized
Cons: Time and staff intensive to develop and need ongoing tech support
Note- there is a table on page 190 of the Collins reading that lays out information on assorted ERMS, and has a checklist on p. 192 for determining the ERMS needs of a particular library
Implementation of ERMS:In my Health Information Systems class last semester, we discussed how adoption of an information system is often hard on a workplace, especially if it involves changes in workflow. Unrealistic expectations about how the system will be integrated and how well it will work often get in the way of successful implementation. This seems to be pretty applicable to Collins' discussion of implementation, and how important planning is for the process.
Some implementation complaints that Collins notes are:
Some implementation complaints that Collins notes are:
- overwhelming amount of manual data needs to be entered
- hard to incorporate tool into workflow
- not having enough staff involved
- poor mapping
- underappreciation of the value of the ERMS
In class we discussed ERMs and read an issue from Against the Grain that covered ERMS. A survey from Against the Grain noted that 75% of respondants use ERMS in their library. The top uses are:
- E-journal package management
- Online database management
- Access to license terms and conditions
UW Madison libraries use Ex Libris's VERDE ERM, Voyager ILS and SFX OpenURL link resolver.
References:
1. Maria D.D. Collins “ERM Systems: Background, Selection and Implementation, Chapter 10 in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 181-206.
2. Hogarth, M.; Bloom, V. “Chapter XVII: Panorama of Electronic Resource Management Systems” Chapter 17 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
3. ERM Special Reports (2010) Against the Grain, Vol 22, No 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)