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.

ALA NISO Access and License Indicators Lagace


Published on

This presentation was provided by Nettie Lagace of NISO during ALA 2016 for the College and Research Libraries Interest Group, ALCTS CRS.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ALA NISO Access and License Indicators Lagace

  1. 1. NISO Access and License Indicators Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseye ALCTS CRS College and Research Libraries Interest Group ALA Annual, Orlando, June 26, 2016
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Audience Segments • Readers • Authors • Publishers • Funders • Search engines/discovery services • Academic Libraries
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. “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
  7. 7. <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”/>
  8. 8. • 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"></li cense_ref> <license_ref start_date="2015-02- 03"></ license_ref> <license_ref> Tag
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. ALI Schema
  11. 11. JATS 1.1
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Thank you! Questions?