PECAN Phase 2: Pilot for Ensuring Continuity of Access via Nesli2


Published on

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PECAN Phase 2: Pilot for Ensuring Continuity of Access via Nesli2

  1. 1. PECAN Phase 2Pilot for Ensuring Continuity of Access via Nesli2 Adam Rusbridge EDINA, University of Edinburgh Workshops with Libraries 12th March 2012 :: JISC Collections, London 19th March 2012 :: EDINA, Edinburgh
  2. 2. EDINA Proposal• Develop a prototype entitlement registry • Match up title information with institutional subscriptions and post-cancellation entitlement• Key components were to: • Design and implement a demonstrator Entitlement Registry • Supporting initial ingest and display of data • Assess methods to automate data ingest • Assess methods to maintain accuracy of records over time • Understand information requirements • For recording, maintaining, providing access • UK HE community • NESLi2 publishers
  3. 3. Initial Data Model • Package (collection) as central component • Flexible institutional identifiers • Record institutional relationships (record license transfer info) • Capture ‘verification statement’ • Capture publisher transfers over time
  4. 4. Data Supply • Taylor and Francis: • SAGE:
  5. 5. Data Sources: Handling dynamic information • Two related content requirements • 1. Record of Entitlement • Messy as an institution can change titles part-way through a deal (keeping the same cost value) • Messy as publishers transfer titles, and entitlements, to other publishers • 2. Current information about a deal • Messy as titles move in and out of a deal • How do we capture this dynamic information?
  6. 6. Data Sources: Handling dynamic information 3. Duplicate coverage: is it useful to identify reasons for this? • Different subscriptions, purchasing departments • How do we usefully distinguish purchases and purchasing authorities 5. How important is the ‘package’? • Neither publisher provided us with this, although we did request it • How to define and maintain information on package/collection? • Journal A-Z lists are a good source of information • But don’t seem to be updated regularly? • Recording publisher transfers • Source information through the TRANSFER initiative 9. Purchasing authority: understanding account numbers
  7. 7. Data Formats • Spreadsheets are satisfactory for development purposes, but do not scale • A-Z title lists are a suitable source for title information • Effort to ingest every time: standard formats or a central source like the ISSN Register would assist • Service- level needs a standard format • ONIX for Serials: SOH (Serials Online Holdings) • ONIX for Serials: SPS (Serials Products and Subscriptions) • KBART..? • However, need better publisher support before expecting them to undertake developments.
  8. 8. Demo • • Jane Librarian / passw0rd • Bill Books / passw0rd
  9. 9. Demo
  10. 10. Conclusions so far… • Publishers manually intervened to generate information • We need to specify and agree data field & formats • Negotiate supply of this, with sensible timings • Standards will be useful • ONIX family show promise • Longer-term prospect: negotiation needed for publisher support • To get publisher buy-in, we need new workflows around supply of information • As part of contract, publisher delivers record of entitlement to registry • Make this a requirement of future NESLi2 license…? • Need service level registry first • Goal is to minimise need for manual intervention
  11. 11. How can the prototype be extended? • Prototype has limited functionality • Use entitlement registry to assist with the verification process • Draw in data from other services, e.g. Keepers Registry • Following slides contain a selection of wire-framed ideas to highlight possibilities.
  12. 12. Wireframes: Verification & External Data
  13. 13. Wireframes: Verification Process
  14. 14. Wireframes: Verification Summary & Reporting
  15. 15. Find out more… @EDINA_eJournals