Ensuring Continuing Access to Online Scholarly Resources Stewardship & Service, (Open) Access & Preservation, Curation


Published on

Presentation given by Adam Rusbridge & Peter Burnhill at the UK LOCKSS Alliance Workshop in London, 22nd October 2009.

Published in: Education
  • 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

Ensuring Continuing Access to Online Scholarly Resources Stewardship & Service, (Open) Access & Preservation, Curation

  1. 1. Knowledge Exchange: Sustainable Access to Publications & Long-term Preservation Ensuring Continuing Access to Online Scholarly Resources Stewardship & Service, (Open) Access & Preservation, Curation Adam Rusbridge, Peter Burnhill EDINA National Data Centre, University of Edinburgh, Scotland UK UK LOCKSS Alliance Workshop London, 22nd October 2009 1
  2. 2. EDINA – ensuring continuity of access• Services • University of Edinburgh joined the CLOCKSS Project that started in 2005/6 • EDINA acts the Archive Node in Europe since launch of CLOCKSS • ‘Open Access’ Host for CLOCKSS triggered content • Support for the UK LOCKSS Alliance ‘cooperative’• Projects • PEPRS: e-journal preservation registry service [with ISSN-IC] • PeCAN: post-cancellation (licensed) content [JISC Collections] 2
  3. 3. Piloting an E-journal Preservation Registry ServicePEPRSProject: JISC-funded, two years starting August 2008 – review after 18 months (Feb. 2010) for move into servicePartners: EDINA and ISSN International Centre (Paris) – Support of Governing Body and Directors of ISSN NetworkProblem: How can libraries & policy-makers assess which e- journals are being archived * by what methods? * under what terms of access? – Self-statement about content, methods, using comparable vocabulary * descriptors of digital preservation policy & practicesPurpose: Scope, develop & test a registry service – Establish and test an Information Architecture – Seek consensus across stakeholders – Technical & financial sustainability 3
  4. 4. This is a ‘Prototype’ – being shared by project partners, and may be shown to projectassociates & the funders (JISC): this shows the Basic Search
  5. 5. Success!This showswho islookingafter thise-journalThis is a‘mock-up’based onsampledata fromthearchivingagencies,and using‘first-cut’fields
  6. 6. What happenswhen theISSN enteredis a print ISSN
  7. 7. Example of asearch thatreports noknownpreservationactivity for anthis e-journal
  8. 8. Shows whathappens whenthe ISSNentered is notrecognised
  9. 9. Project developments • Interaction with Preservation Agencies – Blogging workshop for all Project participants. Seek views on data flows, data fields, vocabularies etc. • Development of demonstrator, to support pilot activity Planned for autumn/winter 2009 • Assessment of future of pilot, and future funding Scheduled for February 2010 9
  10. 10. Project Website and Reports • http://edina.ac.uk/projects/peprs/index.html • • P.Burnhill, F.Pelle, P.Godefroy, F.Guy, M.Macgregor, A.Rusbridge & C.Rees Piloting an e-journals preservation registry service. Serials 22(1) March 2009. [UK Serials Group] • P.Burnhill Tracking e-journal preservation: archiving registry service anyone? Against the Grain. 21(1) February 2009. pp. 32,34,36 10
  11. 11. Questions and Side Benefits • If attention is switching from preservation to post-cancellation access, should PEPRS try to adapt? – But that is for a national registry (PeCAN Project) – A national not an international responsibility 11
  12. 12. Post-cancellation e-Content Access via NESLi2(PeCAN) Recap and Information Architecture Peter Burnhill and Adam Rusbridge EDINA national data centre 12
  13. 13. Recap (2)• JISC has commissioned short scoping study – Focus on back copy, post-cancellation of the (current copy) licence * Not substitute for digital preservation action to ensure that copy still exists – Focus on content licensed under NESLi2 – Engage with (sample of) libraries and publishers * to assess views & quality of subscription data – Propose actionable information architecture * for variety of post-cancellation services and trigger events – Deliver report and indicative demonstrator of system/service * As basis for pilot activity and roll out in 2010 13
  14. 14. Provisions in NESLi2 Model Licence• Clause 8.5 – embodying the principal of post cancellation access – After termination of this Agreement […] the Publisher will provide […] the Licensee […] with access to and use of the full text of the Licensed Material which was published and paid for within the Subscription Period, by i) continuing online access on the Publishers interface, ii) a central archiving facility operated on behalf of the UK HE/FE community, or – or other archival facility iii)supplying the Licensee with archival copies i.e. One or more mode of access to back copy should be offered for a given title 14
  15. 15. Information Architecture to Enact NESLi2 Clause 8.5• Clarifying terms & providing mechanism / infrastructure a) What arrangements (for what titles) already exist b) How to determine what titles were “published and paid for” c) How to determine what content is/was “within the Subscription Period” * Re-thinking a library’s ‘holdings statement’ for start/end of what is on their digital shelf• Avoiding confusion and potential burden – for libraries (and their patrons), publishers, archiving agencies• Scoping what could usefully be done 1. Establishing entitlement (via registry service) * So that a library has simplified/agreed statement of what is ‘the Licensed Material’ 2. Enabling access to back copy * So that a library (and end user) has agreed and assured means of access to ‘the Licensed Material’ * Preferably, so that library patrons would have the same experience with ‘back copy’ as they do now 15
  16. 16. post-cancellation access requires shared knowledge of history• Assertion 1: Most knowledgebases contain information on current status of authorisation: history is being over-written• Assertion 2: Multi-level problem – Libraries & end users want convenient (and continuing) access to journal titles and articles – Titles are embedded in licences for collections of titles * Terms of licence vary across titles in a ‘big deal’, especially wrt period of entitlement. – Titles change hands between publishers and fall in and out of collection ‘deals’ – Publishers change, and publishers vary in IT capability• Assertion 3: Risk of duplication of effort (without value of replication) – as libraries all try to ensure the same thing – may also be true for publishers• Assertion 4: information on licensing should be held securely – made available only for purpose of enabling access on a user article-request basis, or librarian’s need to know title-by-title * cf OpenURL resolvers 16
  17. 17. making arrangement to access back copy (given entitlement)• Assertion 1: Require one or more (assured) source of post-cancellation back copy: i) the Publishers interface, ii) a central archiving facility operated on behalf of the UK HE/FE community, or other archival facility iii) the Licensee’s archival copy• Assertion 2: a locate facility with ‘actionable metadata’ on source and supply of back copy, when requested by the end user (‘appropriate copy’) – Relying upon standard methods of authentication and authorisation• Assertion 3: a central archiving facility on behalf of the UK HE/FE community would provide attested assurance in the UK across the full range of NESLi2 e-journal content – Gaining leverage from existing archiving arrangements – Gaining leverage from the JISC national data centres, EDINA & Mimas• Assertion 4: Assurance is still needed that content exists, will continue to exist – Digital preservation problem being addressed by UK LOCKSS, CLOCKSS etc – Information about who is looking after what is being addressed by PEPRS 17
  18. 18. System Architecture for Access to Back Copy, Post-cancellation 18
  19. 19. Post-cancellation Data dependencye-ContentAccess viaNESLi2 Post-Cancellation Resolver m2m (eg OpenURL) METADATA METADATA on subscription entitlement d (a) to locate means of access (b) Knowledgebase Store of Back Copy / Service (s) (i) publisher’s (ii) central facility Institutional licence history (NESLi2) (iii) institution
  20. 20. Comment on the initial feedback from libraries• The registry could potentially be of more interest than the archive – The registry would be very useful for reassurance of actual rights• How does this affect LOCKSS and Portico? Creating and running an archive could be a massive project – Intend to gain leverage from what exists, including UK LOCKSS Alliance, Portico, CLOCKSS, etc• Keeping the registry up to date would be a major task – Intend to use network interoperability (search/harvest)• What would be the ‘start’ date of journal content? – A ‘start-up’ problem, but actual depends upon ‘agreement’ and ‘pragmatics’• Would the archive eventually include non-NESLi2 titles – Not presently in scope• ERMs could help in provision of lists of eligible titles – This is one of a number of possible sources• Potential problems with titles changes, transfers, mergers - true :) 20
  21. 21. Comment on the initial feedback from publishers• Would the ‘default’ post termination access still be via publishers’ sites? – A policy question: if there was metadata to say that the publisher provides access• Would the archive be permanently ‘open’ or only a ‘dark archive’? – ??• What would be the format requirements for content and metadata? – To be determined, could be a role for Onix for Serials• How would the archive handle authentication (I.e. limit access to subscribers)? – UK Access Management Federation• Could archive usage data be provided to publishers? – Should be possible• What would be the ‘start’ date of journal content? – A ‘start-up’ problem, but actual depends upon ‘agreement’ and ‘pragmatics’• Complex to build and maintain – Intend to gain leverage from what exists, including UK LOCKSS Alliance, Portico, CLOCKSS, etc• Movement of titles amongst publishers will be a challenge - true :) 21
  22. 22. Project deliverables• Now in second half in a four month scoping project, intending to cover: 1. Problem statement, including definition of user/stakeholder requirements, with arrangements for governance and operation, as Report 2. Outline of the information architecture, with (one or more) candidate technical implementation models to support discovery of entitlement to back copy and assured means of access, as Report and indicative demonstrator 3. Web page, Report on Project (for end November) Your feedback is very welcome, and in fact is essential 22
  23. 23. Project Website and Updates PECAN Website http://www.edina.ac.uk/projects/pecan 23