Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick

529
views

Published on

Presented at the 2010 Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference. -- …

Presented at the 2010 Electronic Resources & Libraries Conference. --

Tina Feick, Harrassowitz --

Abstract: After two surveys and transactional analysis, NISO's I2 Working Group is ready to move forward to finalize the metadata required to define the indentifier, consider options for other identifier standardsm ensure legacy systems are addressedm and explore possible registries and maintenance agencies. Next steps for the identifier standard will be discussed along with the need for support for testing and plans for implementation within the e-resource supply chain, insitutional repository sector, and library resource management (ILL).

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
529
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 58.1% of repositories include identifiers for themselves 46.1% of repositories include identifiers for their organizations 74.2% of repositories that include institutional identifiers also include identifiers for institutional subdivisions 37.5% use systems to assign – Handle.net, Dspace, DNs, OCLC, ISIL, ePrints, EDINA, CDL 41.7% use manual processes to assign – repository team, single individual, outside department 9.7% use a combination 31.9% have yet to encounter any issues they would consider potentially solvable by standardized institutional identifiers 14.9% state a standardized ii would have helped track institutions across name changes, disambiguate similarly-named institutions, and tie collections to institutions 10.6% would havehlped identify and enumerate organizational unites, esp in multi-lingual units 8.5% would have helped tie authors to institutions 56.6% not used for other librasry activities 22.6% are used in other contexts 60.3% important to have single identifier Other issues – little agreement – assignment of identifiers, 1/3 prefer to reflect hierarchy in the identifiers, agency best suited to manage Metadata – CORE – institution name element,
  • Transcript

    • 1. Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Really Need It! ER&L 2010 Austin, Texas February 1, 2010 Tina Feick 02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 2. I 2 (Institutional Identifiers) Working Group
      • NISO created – July 2008
      • www.niso.org/workrooms/I2
      • Co-Chairs
        • Grace Agnew, Rutgers University
        • Oliver Pesch, EBSCO (2 nd Phase)
        • Tina Feick, HARRASSOWITZ (1 st Phase)
      • Consultant
        • Helen Henderson, Ringgold
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 3. How do you identify your institution?
      • HOW MANY ARE YOU TRACKING?
      02012010 Tina Feick MARC ORG CODE NUC HANDLE PURL FEDORA ID OCLC IDENTIFIER UUID ISIL ARK DOI CONSORTIA INTERNALLY ASSIGNED DSPACE
    • 4. Institutional Identifier – I2 – Working Group - Defined
      • “ The NISO working group will develop a standard for an institutional identifier that can be implemented in all library and publishing environments. The standard will include definition of the metadata required to be collected with the identifier and what uses can be made of that metadata.”
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 5. I2 – Goal and Objectives
      • Goal – support the user who wants smooth and seamless access to information
      • Develop scenarios with most compelling use cases – identify needs and engage all stakeholders
      • Identify a robust, interoperable, and unique identifier – examine existing id standards
      • Identify and resolve issues – granularity
      • Identify core metadata for identifier
      • Identify an implementation and sustainability model
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 6. Identifier Concept
      • Standard identifier for each institution
      • Same identifier to be used across publishers and agents
      • Define hierarchies and combinations (consortia)
      • Define publishers, agents, online hosts, etc.
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 7. Same Identifier for all Publishers
      • Institution Identifier = 123456789X
      • Pub 1
      • 123456789X Pub 2
      • Pub 3
      • Same Identifier with each publisher
      • (Publisher Cooperation Essential)
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 8. Same Identifier Travels with Order Creates Matchpoint
      • Example:
      • University of Texas = 123456789X
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick LIBRARY (Order) AGENT PUBLISHER ONLINE HOSTS USAGE STATS
    • 9. I2 Approach
      • Stakeholders
      • Scenarios
      • Work plan
      • Timescale
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 10. Stakeholders
      • Libraries
      • Agents (vendors)
      • Publishers
      • Aggregators
      • Hosting services
      • Fulfilment services
      • Academics
      • Institutional repositories
      • Students
      • Authors
      • Editors
      • Reviewers
      • Manuscript systems
      • Funding bodies
      • Academic administrators
      • Rights agencies
      • Consortia
      • eLearning vendors/services
      • Doctors
      • State-wide/national agencies
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 11. Issues
      • Granularity
      • Hierarchy
      • Interoperability
      • Appropriate for the e-world
      • Uniqueness
      • International
      • More than just acquisitions
      • Agreement
      • Registries
      • Authentication
      • Population of systems
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 12. Scenarios
      • A - Electronic Resources Supply Chain
      • B/C – Institutional Repositories
      • D - Library Resource Management
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 13. Where is the pain?
      • First Task for each scenario - Pinpoint the pain --
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 14. Scenario A – Electronic Supply Chain Across all Sectors 02/01/2010 Tina Feick Section Leader Libraries Cindy Hepfer, Univ. of Buffalo Intermediaries (Agents, Online Hosts, Aggregators) Tina Feick, HARRASSOWITZ Helen Henderson, Ringgold Publishers Andrea Lopez, Annual Reviews Research Janifer Gatenby, OCLC Systems Peter McCracken, SerialsSolutions
    • 15. Scenario A - Background
      • Based on the Journal Supply Chain Pilot Project – www.journalsupplychain.com
        • British Library, HighWire Press, Oxford University Press, Ringgold, Swets
        • Each organization – own way of recognizing customers and users
      • Each section – list of transactions with identifier for and to each sector
        • Over 100 transactions
        • Determined pain areas
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 16. Scenario – Electronic Resources – Pains – Where is the need?
      • Missing issues – subscription not starting
      • Lost access to electronic journals
      • Confusion over renewals
      • Problems with titles that moved to a new publisher.
      • Resolve issues with identifier
      • Accurate (and quick) entry of order
      • Change in agents
      • Change in publishers
      • Change in online hosts
      • Update in IP ranges
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 17. Usage Statistics – IDENTIFIER NEEDED
      • Differentiate libraries in consortia
      • Multi-site library
      • Publishers use the same identifier
      • Aggregator – offers to publishers
        • EBSCO Publishing – December 2009
        • Include Ringgold Identifier in stats reports
      • Support COUNTER & SUSHI
        • www.projectcounter.org – www.niso.org
        • COUNTER 3 – includes SUSHI
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 18. Identifier in use in Electronic Supply Chain
      • Open identify database – Ringgold Identifier
        • www.openidentify.com
        • 165,000 institutions
        • Staff maintains database
        • Recently added hierarchy analysis
        • Free access
        • 45 publishers
        • With DataSalon created hierarchy tree display for institutions
        • Consortia membership recorded
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 19. Core Registry Metadata Types of information
      • Version 8 – September 2009
      • Data Element
      • Sub-Element or Attribute
      • Attribute Definition – language, type, etc.
      • Obligation (Mandatory/optional/conditional)
      • Repeatable – y/n
      • Controlled Vocabulary – country codes, etc.
      • Usage Note
      • Comments
      • Function
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 20. Core Metadata Elements
      • M - Institutionidentifier – “dumb number”
      • O - Variantidentifier – Alternate or supplementary identifier
      • M - Name
      • O - Variantname
      • M - Location – city, region, country, language
      • O - URL
      • O - Domain
      • O - Relatedinstitution – type
      • M = Mandatory O = Optional
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 21. Scenario – Institutional Repositories – Survey – July 2009
      • Repository Managers and Developers
      • Prominent repositories and selected from OpenDOAR, a directory of open access repositories – 100 respondents
      • Identified mailing lists – Appendix A of report on website & listed on personal blogs
      • Aware that academic dominated
      • 165 responses – 102 answered every question
      • Full report on website – www.niso.org/workingrooms/I2
      • Article – ISQ, v.21:4, Fall 2009
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 22. IR Survey Results – “SURVEY SAYS” 02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 23. Scenario D – Library Resource Management - Survey
      • Identified workflows to be addressed
      • 116 responses; 106 answered all
      • Listservs
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 24. Library Resource Management Workflows Identified 02/01/2010 Tina Feick Library Workflow
    • 25. Library Resources Survey Results
      • 52% use identifiers
      • 66% likely and somewhat likely to implement
      • OCLC Identifier – major one used (ILL)
      • Accepted core elements
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 26. ISNI – International Standard Name Identifier
      • http://www.isni.org
      • Draft Standard - ISO 27729
      • Global identification system of public identities of parties - publicly known name
      • Natural person, fictional character, legal entity
      • Authors, composers, performers, etc.
      • 16 numerical digits – last digit – check digit
      • “ bridge” identifier – connect information
      • Discussions underway
      02/01/2010 Tina Feick
    • 27. Identifier Standards
      • MARC Organization Code (MARC21)
      • OCLC Symbol (Contribute to WorldCat)
      • SAN (Standard Address Number)
      • DUNS (D&B Proprietary)
      • ISIL (International Standard Identifier for Libraries and Related Organisations )
      • ISDIAH (International Standard for Describing Institutions with Archival Holdings Information)
      • ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier)
      • OCLC WorldCat Registry
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 28. I2 Accomplishments – Phase I
      • Scenario Analysis
      • Surveys
      • Metadata Explored and Defined
      • Promotion
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 29. Delays, Debate and Angst 02012010 Tina Feick
    • 30. Phase II – What’s Ahead?
      • Evaluation and selection of identifier standard – review available standards
        • Support for metadata registry
        • Applicability for each broad scenario
        • Ease of adoption and use
        • Interoperability or ease of transition for legacy systems
      • Finalize I2 metadata
      • Implementation and maintenance strategy
      • Stakeholder feedback
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 31. Timeline
      • Escalating work through December 2010
      • Webinars to get feedback with various sectors
      02012010 Tina Feick
    • 32. Thank You for your Support!!!!
      • Tina Feick
      • Director of Sales and Marketing
      • HARRASSOWITZ
      • European Booksellers and
      • Global Subscription Agents
      • email: [email_address]
      • phone: 1-800-348-6886
      • website: www.harrassowitz.de
      02012010 Tina Feick