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.

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

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).

  • Login to see the comments

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

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