Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

DDA/OAMI Update, NISO Update ALA Annual 2013


Published on

Nettie Lagace @ NISO Update, June 30, 2013, Chicago, IL

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

  • Be the first to like this

DDA/OAMI Update, NISO Update ALA Annual 2013

  1. 1. 1 Additional Updates – Selected NISO Working Groups Nettie Lagace Associate Director for Programs ALA Annual, Chicago, IL June 30, 2013
  2. 2. Demand-driven Acquisition • Acquisition of library materials based on patron selection at the point of need • Rebalance collection from possible use toward immediate need • Make many more titles available to users – A broader, deeper collection – Spend same amount for greater access or less for same access 2
  3. 3. Goals • Develop a flexible model for DDA that works for publishers, vendors, aggregators, and libraries. • Allow for DDA plans that – Meet local budget and collection needs – Allow for consortial participation – Allow for cross-aggregator implementation – Account for how DDA impacts all functional areas of the library 3
  4. 4. Working Group • Chairs: Michael Levine-Clark (University of Denver); Barb Kawecki (YBP) • Subcommittees: – Technical Issues (Lisa Nachtigall, Wiley) – Access Models (Lorraine Keelan, Palgrave) – Metrics (Lisa Mackinder, UC Irvine) • Members: libraries (University of Arizona Library, Douglas County Libraries (CO), Uppsala university library (Sweden), SCELC Consortium), publishers (Oxford University Press, Elsevier), vendors (JSTOR, Project MUSE, EBL, Ex Libris, OCLC) 4
  5. 5. Timeline • Currently: Landscape investigation – Watch for survey! Sign up at • Draft this fall • Publication early 2014 5
  6. 6. • No standardized bibliographic metadata currently provides information – on whether a specific article is openly accessible (i.e. can be read by any user who can get to the journal website over the internet) – and what re-use rights might be available to readers. • 6 Open Access Metadata and Indicators
  7. 7. • Standardized set of metadata elements that can be shared between publishers would therefore be of value. • First level: identify elements that describe the accessibility of specific articles, i.e. can this specific article be openly accessed from an arbitrary point on the internet? • Second level: address re-use rights 7 Output
  8. 8. Roster Co-chairs: • Cameron Neylon, PLoS • Ed Pentz, CrossRef • Greg Tananbaum, SPARC Members: • Tim Devenport, EDItEUR • Gregg Gordon, SSRN • Julie Hardesty, Indiana University Library • Paul Keller, Europeana Licensing Framework • Cecy Marden, Digital Services, 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 8
  9. 9. Timeline • Approval of Proposal Jan 2013 • Appointment of Working Group Feb 2013 • Approval of Initial Work Plan Mar 2013 • Completion of Information Gathering June-July 2013 • Completion of Initial Draft Oct 2013 • Public Comment Period Nov 2013 • Completion of Final Draft Dec 2013 9
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. @abugseye Thank You!