Actions and Updates on the
Standards and Best Practices Front
Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseye
Laurie Kaplan, Proquest
NASI...
What’s NISO?
• Non-profit industry trade association accredited by ANSI
with 150+ members
• Mission of developing and main...
Premise of “Standards”
• Consensus standards created by a community with
various stakeholders
• Trust
• Leading to broader...
the process of standards creation
4
Considerations
• Value to be gained
• Feasibility
• Community(ies) affected
• Stakeholders (Vested interests)
• Participan...
Today
• Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART)
• Presentation and Identification of E-Journals
(PIE-J)
• Open Discovery...
Knowledge Bases and Related Tools
(KBART) Recommended Practice
KBART PHASE II
NOW
AVAILABLE!
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart
article citation
OpenURL
query (base URL
+ metadata string)
link resolver/
knowledge base
target (cited)
article
publisher...
Where the chain breaks
• Wrong data
– Publisher gives wrong metadata for title to the KB
– Link resolver uses bad metadata...
KBART: A simple metadata exchange format
Phase II work:
1. Metadata for Consortia
2. Open Access metadata
3. E-book/ Conference Proceeding metadata
12
1. Consortia
• Survey results
• Libraries purchase titles as a consortium
• Consortium administrators and librarians need
...
1. Consortia
• Re-states the importance of providing a separate
file for each “Global” package that the Content
Provider o...
1. Consortia
• Changes to file naming for ALL files.
• Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file
structure.
– [Provide...
2. Book Series / Proceedings
• Phase I
– recommendations were serial-centric
– Some fields were dual-purpose
• date_first_...
2. E-book metadata
• Phase II
– Specify fields for use by serials and those for use
by monographs – disambiguation of usag...
3. Open Access
• Much more content now available in ‘OA’
form
• Importance of facilitating access to both paid
and free pe...
3. Open Access
• Challenges
– What to do with Hybrid OA models?
• Delayed OA – example: free access until one year ago.
• ...
3. Open Access
• Free-text coverage_notes field suggested to
explain subtleties of OA availability for that
particular tit...
1. Everything can be found at
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/endorsement/
2. Review the requirements (data samples av...
NISO – PIE-J
Presentation and Identification of
Electronic Journals
Laurie Kaplan
May 3, 2014
NASIG Annual Conference
Brief History
• NISO Working Group created in October, 2010
• 13 Working Group members representing
libraries, publishers/...
PIE-J
• This Recommended Practice was developed in
order to provide guidance on the presentation
of e-journals
• particula...
PIE-J Highlights
The recommended practice guidelines address the following:
• Retention of title and citation information ...
• Full 67 page Recommended
Practice includes positive
examples of each point listed
and additional related
Appendix materi...
Tri-fold Print Version: Electronic Version:
These are both two page brochures
focused on the main points in the
recommende...
Representative
Example
• One examples from
the Appendix
• Clearly indicates the
point being
illustrated
• Links in the cap...
Creation of the Standing Committee
• Created in September 2013
• 10 committee members
What has the SC done?
• Review of all sections
– Indicate any changes
• New document(s) posted
– Publisher/Provider letter...
PIE-J Document Statistics
4854
974
1459
129
Over 7400 Downloads (as of 4/23/14)
Full Recommended Practice
Print brochure
O...
PIE-J Document Statistics
Published March 2013:
• Full Recommended Practice – 4854 downloads
• Print Brochure – 974 downlo...
What can you do?
• Notify publishers/providers when their
websites are in compliance with PIE-J, or are
confusing or missi...
Contact information
PIE-J Website:
• http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej
Send feedback to:
– nisohq@niso.org with subject P...
The Open Discovery Initiative
The context for ODI
• Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions
– Based on index of a wide range of content
– Comm...
General Goals
• Define ways for libraries to assess the level of
content providers’ participation in discovery services
• ...
Balance of Constituents
Libraries
Publishers
Service Providers
38
Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant
Jamene Brooks-...
Subgroups
• Technical recommendations for data format
and data transfer
• Communication of library’s rights/Descriptors
re...
Deliverables
• Vocabulary
• NISO Recommended Practice
– Data format and data transfer
– Library rights to specific content...
Current steps
• 30-day public comment period Fall 2013
• Working Group evaluation of comments, edits
to RP, responses
• Wo...
Open Access
Metadata and Indicators
Why is This Necessary?
Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids
=
Lots of OA papers with different associated rights
...
Audience Segments
• Readers
• Authors
• Publishers
• Funders
• Search engines/discovery services
• Academic Libraries
Working Group’s Objectives
1. A specified format for bibliographic metadata and
possibly, a set of visual signals, describ...
Working Group Membership
Co-chairs:
• Cameron Neylon, PLoS
• Ed Pentz, CrossRef
• Greg Tananbaum, Consultant
(SPARC)
Membe...
“open access” politically fraught
• Won’t use this label
Factual information:
– Is a specified work free to read – can it ...
<free_to_read> Tag
• Indicates content can be read or viewed by
any user without payment or authentication
• Simple attrib...
• Content of this tag would include a stable identifier
expressed as an HTTP URI
• URI would point to license terms that a...
Distributing Metadata
• Who? Publishers, aggregators, content
providers
• Include the metadata in all standard metadata
se...
What’s Next?
• Public Review and Comment period
• Working Group will address and potentially
incorporate Comments
• NISO A...
Benefits of Successful
Implementation
Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids =
Lots of OA papers with different ass...
Thank you! Questions?
Spring Colors! by cerebros1 is licensed under CC-BY
NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front
NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front

876

Published on

Speakers: Laurie Kaplan, ProQuest; Nettie Lagace, NISO. This program provides an update on several NISO projects potentially of interest to serials librarians, including PIE-J (Presentation and Identification of E-Journals), ODI (Open Discovery Initiative), KBART (KnowledgeBases and Related Tools), and OAMI (Open Access Metadata and Indicators). The projects are at different stages in their creation, publication and revision lifecycles, but all require community understanding and input. Participants will receive practical information on how the initiatives affect their daily work and how their experiences can shape the creation and uptake of consensus-based community standards in the library and information industry.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
876
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front"

  1. 1. Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseye Laurie Kaplan, Proquest NASIG 29th Annual Conference, Fort Worth TX May 3, 2014
  2. 2. What’s NISO? • Non-profit industry trade association accredited by ANSI with 150+ members • Mission of developing and maintaining standards related to information, documentation, discovery and distribution of published materials and media • Represent US interests to ISO TC46 (Information and Documentation) and also serve as Secretariat for ISO TC46/SC 9 (Identification and Description) • Responsible for standards like ISSN, DOI, Dublin Core metadata, DAISY digital talking books, OpenURL, SIP, NCIP, MARC records and ISBN (indirectly) • Volunteer driven organization: 400+ spread out across the world
  3. 3. Premise of “Standards” • Consensus standards created by a community with various stakeholders • Trust • Leading to broader acceptance • Standards as plumbing • Standards facilitate trade, commerce and innovation • Standards reduce costs • Standards support better communication and interoperability across systems
  4. 4. the process of standards creation 4
  5. 5. Considerations • Value to be gained • Feasibility • Community(ies) affected • Stakeholders (Vested interests) • Participants required/desired • Timeframes 5
  6. 6. Today • Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) • Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J) • Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) • Open Access Metadata and Indicators (OAMI)
  7. 7. Knowledge Bases and Related Tools (KBART) Recommended Practice
  8. 8. KBART PHASE II NOW AVAILABLE! http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart
  9. 9. article citation OpenURL query (base URL + metadata string) link resolver/ knowledge base target (cited) article publisher website database print collections gateways publisher/provider holdings data repository OpenURL basics
  10. 10. Where the chain breaks • Wrong data – Publisher gives wrong metadata for title to the KB – Link resolver uses bad metadata to make link – Link does not resolve to correct target – Dead end  • Outdated data – Publisher said it has a particular issue – Link resolver links to an article from it – Issue has been removed – Dead end  – Or, provider doesn’t notify that issue is now live – So no traffic from link resolvers to that issue!
  11. 11. KBART: A simple metadata exchange format
  12. 12. Phase II work: 1. Metadata for Consortia 2. Open Access metadata 3. E-book/ Conference Proceeding metadata 12
  13. 13. 1. Consortia • Survey results • Libraries purchase titles as a consortium • Consortium administrators and librarians need the same title-level information from their consortium-purchased packages as they do from “vanilla” publisher packages. • Difficult to obtain accurate consortium- specific title lists. 13
  14. 14. 1. Consortia • Re-states the importance of providing a separate file for each “Global” package that the Content Provider offers. • Consortium-specific files should be created when: – A unique set of titles has been packaged for the consortium, different than the Content Provider’s standard packages. – A package contains unique dates of coverage. 14
  15. 15. 1. Consortia • Changes to file naming for ALL files. • Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file structure. – [ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[Package Name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt – Applicable to Consortia packages and Regional variants (e.g., “Asia-Pacific”, “Germany”, etc.) – “Global” value is used if the package is available for all libraries to purchase. 15
  16. 16. 2. Book Series / Proceedings • Phase I – recommendations were serial-centric – Some fields were dual-purpose • date_first_issue_online • Identifiers – Holding’s content type was ambiguous • Challenges – Both serial and monograph – Users search for both titles • New fields – parent_publication_title_id – preceding_publication_title_id 16
  17. 17. 2. E-book metadata • Phase II – Specify fields for use by serials and those for use by monographs – disambiguation of usage – 4 new monographic fields added, plus - publication_type - first_editor - parent_publication - preceding_publication_title_id 17
  18. 18. 3. Open Access • Much more content now available in ‘OA’ form • Importance of facilitating access to both paid and free peer-reviewed, quality publications (not just fee-based material). 18
  19. 19. 3. Open Access • Challenges – What to do with Hybrid OA models? • Delayed OA – example: free access until one year ago. • Title transfer OA – title changes from OA to paid (or vice versa) upon transfer to another publisher. • Author-paid OA – some articles fee-based. • Full OA – all content is free – Title-level vs. article-level OA metadata 19
  20. 20. 3. Open Access • Free-text coverage_notes field suggested to explain subtleties of OA availability for that particular title. • New field – access_type – “F” – title is open access or free – “P” – title requires payment of fee of any kind (even if not 100% material is paid) Use repeated fields for hybrid titles with different coverage types 20
  21. 21. 1. Everything can be found at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/endorsement/ 2. Review the requirements (data samples available) 3. Format your title lists accordingly. 4. Self-check to ensure they conform to the recommended practice 5. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data updates 6. Register your organization on the KBART registry website: http://bit.ly/kbartregistry Publisher Involvement
  22. 22. NISO – PIE-J Presentation and Identification of Electronic Journals Laurie Kaplan May 3, 2014 NASIG Annual Conference
  23. 23. Brief History • NISO Working Group created in October, 2010 • 13 Working Group members representing libraries, publishers/providers, and content solutions vendors • PIE-J finalized as a Recommended Practice, dated March 25, 2013 • Standing Committee created in Sept. 2013 • 10 Committee members
  24. 24. PIE-J • This Recommended Practice was developed in order to provide guidance on the presentation of e-journals • particularly in the areas of title presentation, accurate use of ISSN, and citation practices • to publishers and platform providers as well as to solve some long-standing concerns of serials librarians
  25. 25. PIE-J Highlights The recommended practice guidelines address the following: • Retention of title and citation information under which articles were originally published • Display of title histories, including information relating to title changes and related metadata • Display of correct ISSN for different formats and for changed titles • Retention and display of vital publication information across the history of a journal, • including publisher names; clear numbering and dates; editors, editorial boards, and sponsoring organizations; and frequency of publication • Graphic design and inclusion of information that allows easy access to • all content • Special considerations for retroactive digitization
  26. 26. • Full 67 page Recommended Practice includes positive examples of each point listed and additional related Appendix materials. • Available on the NISO site: http://www.niso.org/apps/org/ workgroup/piej/download.php/ 10368/rp-16-2013_pie-j.pdf
  27. 27. Tri-fold Print Version: Electronic Version: These are both two page brochures focused on the main points in the recommended practice
  28. 28. Representative Example • One examples from the Appendix • Clearly indicates the point being illustrated • Links in the caption point to the relevant recommendation(s)
  29. 29. Creation of the Standing Committee • Created in September 2013 • 10 committee members
  30. 30. What has the SC done? • Review of all sections – Indicate any changes • New document(s) posted – Publisher/Provider letter template • Marketing Efforts – Publicity letter for discussion lists and related newsletters – Presentations at conferences
  31. 31. PIE-J Document Statistics 4854 974 1459 129 Over 7400 Downloads (as of 4/23/14) Full Recommended Practice Print brochure Online brochure New Pie-J Letter
  32. 32. PIE-J Document Statistics Published March 2013: • Full Recommended Practice – 4854 downloads • Print Brochure – 974 downloads • Online Brochure – 1459 downloads – These stats rose quickly after the publicity information was sent to various discussions lists and newsletters Published March 2014: • Publisher /Provider letter – 129 downloads As of April 9, 2014
  33. 33. What can you do? • Notify publishers/providers when their websites are in compliance with PIE-J, or are confusing or missing relevant information • Work with interested publishers/providers who want to improve their sites: – Sage project with California Digital Library and Becky Culbertson • Send NISO your feedback
  34. 34. Contact information PIE-J Website: • http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej Send feedback to: – nisohq@niso.org with subject PIE-J Feedback Thank you!
  35. 35. The Open Discovery Initiative
  36. 36. The context for ODI • Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions – Based on index of a wide range of content – Commercial and open access – Primary journal literature, ebooks, and more • Adopted by thousands of libraries around the world, and impact millions of users 36
  37. 37. General Goals • Define ways for libraries to assess the level of content providers’ participation in discovery services • Help streamline the process by which content providers work with discovery service vendors • Define models for “fair” linking from discovery services to publishers’ content • Determine what usage statistics should be collected for libraries and for content providers 37
  38. 38. Balance of Constituents Libraries Publishers Service Providers 38 Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard University Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus (D2D liaison/observer) Michele Newberry, Independent Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka Jenny Walker, Independent Consultant John Law, Proquest Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC) Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)
  39. 39. Subgroups • Technical recommendations for data format and data transfer • Communication of library’s rights/Descriptors regarding level of indexing • Definition of fair linking • Exchange of usage data 39
  40. 40. Deliverables • Vocabulary • NISO Recommended Practice – Data format and data transfer – Library rights to specific content – Level of indexing – Fair linking – Usage statistics • Mechanisms to evaluate conformance with recommended practice 40
  41. 41. Current steps • 30-day public comment period Fall 2013 • Working Group evaluation of comments, edits to RP, responses • Working Group approval • Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee approval • NISO Publication 41
  42. 42. Open Access Metadata and Indicators
  43. 43. Why is This Necessary? Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids = Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and responsibilities = Confusion concerning who can do what when
  44. 44. Audience Segments • Readers • Authors • Publishers • Funders • Search engines/discovery services • Academic Libraries
  45. 45. Working Group’s Objectives 1. A specified format for bibliographic metadata and possibly, a set of visual signals, describing the readership rights associated with a single scholarly work 2. Recommended mechanisms for publishing and distributing this metadata 3. A report on the feasibility of including clear information on downstream re-use rights within the current project and, if judged feasible, inclusion of these elements in outputs 1 and 2 4. A report stating how the adoption of these outputs would answer (or not) specific use cases to be developed by the Working Group
  46. 46. Working Group Membership Co-chairs: • Cameron Neylon, PLoS • Ed Pentz, CrossRef • Greg Tananbaum, Consultant (SPARC) Members: • Tim Devenport, EDItEUR • Gregg Gordon, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) • Julie Hardesty, Indiana University Library • Paul Keller, Europeana Licensing Framework • Cecy Marden, The Wellcome Library • Jack Ochs, American Chemical Society • Heather Reid, Copyright Clearance Center • Jill Russell, University of Birmingham • Chris Shillum, Elsevier • Ben Showers, JISC • Eefke Smit, STM Association • Christine Stohn, Ex Libris • Timothy Vollmer, Creative Commons
  47. 47. “open access” politically fraught • Won’t use this label Factual information: – Is a specified work free to read – can it be accessed by anyone who has access to the Web? – What re-use rights are granted to this reader? • Minimal set of metadata needed • Decided not to create/recommend a logo
  48. 48. <free_to_read> Tag • Indicates content can be read or viewed by any user without payment or authentication • Simple attribute of “yes” or “no” • Optional start and end dates to accommodate embargoes, special offers, etc. <free_to_read="no" start_date="2014-02-3” end_date=”2015-02-03"/> <free_to_read="yes" start_date="2015-02-3”/>
  49. 49. • Content of this tag would include a stable identifier expressed as an HTTP URI • URI would point to license terms that are human and/or machine readable • Multiple URIs can be listed if article exists under specific license for certain period of time and then changes <license_ref start_date="2014-02- 03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/license_v1.html</li cense_ref> <license_ref start_date="2015-02- 03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/open_license.html</ license_ref> <license_ref> Tag
  50. 50. Distributing Metadata • Who? Publishers, aggregators, content providers • Include the metadata in all standard metadata sets – Intended that this population/distribution will become part of standard editorial and production workflows • Could also include in alerts such as e-TOCs and RSS feeds and A&I feeds
  51. 51. What’s Next? • Public Review and Comment period • Working Group will address and potentially incorporate Comments • NISO Approval • NISO Publication as a Recommended Practice
  52. 52. Benefits of Successful Implementation Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids = Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and responsibilities = Confusion concerning who can do what when + OA Metadata Indicator = Transmittal of an article’s openness in a manner that makes discovery, tracking, readership, and (hopefully) reuse straightforward
  53. 53. Thank you! Questions? Spring Colors! by cerebros1 is licensed under CC-BY

×