This document summarizes the objectives and activities of a working group on rights metadata. The working group aims to: 1. Develop a format for bibliographic metadata that describes the readership rights of scholarly works. 2. Recommend mechanisms for publishing and distributing this rights metadata. 3. Report on the feasibility of including re-use rights information and incorporating it into the outputs. 4. Report on how adopting these outputs would address specific use cases developed by the working group. The working group is co-chaired by representatives from PLoS, CrossRef, and SPARC. It includes members from various organizations. The group discussed tags for indicating whether a work is freely available to read

1. Standards can
feel overwhelming
sometimes…
Nettie Lagace - @abugseye
ER&L – February 24, 2015

3. 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

4. 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

5. “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

6. <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”/>

7. • 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">http://www.psychoceramics.org/license_v1.html</li
cense_ref>
<license_ref start_date="2015-02-
03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/open_license.html</
license_ref>
<license_ref> Tag

8. 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

9. ALI Schema

10. What’s Next?
• NISO Publication as a Recommended Practice
• Setting up discussion mailing list and NISO
Standing Committee
– JATS Standing Committee determining how ALI
will be incorporated into JATS

11. • Definitions support consistent
measurement of use of
electronic products
• Maintained by COUNTER
Executive Committee
• COP R4 went into effect 2014
– Further definitions and
modifications/expansions
to reports
– Support for SUSHI required
– Register of Compliant
Vendors/Products
• Communicates COUNTER-
formatted data for automatic
transfer from publisher
system to library system
• Maintained by a NISO
Standing Committee
• Materials consist of
– SUSHI standard
– SUSHI implementation
profile
– Registry

12. New Stuff
• Code of Practice for Articles R1 – March 2014
• Code of Practice for Usage Factor R1 – April
2014
– Focus on journals
– Provides info about the average use of the items
in an online journal.
– Can be used to compare journals irrespective of
their size.

13. Recent & Coming
• Updated SUSHI Standard, January 2015:
Expansion of filter definitions (beyond date)
– could exclude zero usage items from report (process
smaller report from large content providers)
– provide usage for a specific departmental IP range
• “SUSHI lite” Technical Report
– a lightweight protocol to transmit 'snippets' of usage
via HTTP REST versus SOAP [large reports]
– could apply to article level usage
http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi/librarians/

14. SUSHI Lite Use cases
• Institutional repository exchanging article level usage
with publisher
• National aggregator/consolidator service (IRUS-UK)
pulling article-level usage from institutional
repositories and other content sites
• Alternative metrics system retrieving article-level
usage from publishers, institutional repositories and
other content sites for presenting overall impact
numbers; offering real-time access to stats

15. SUSHI-Lite
Sample use cases…
• Serials management system pulling use for a
particular journal for in-workflow usage display

16. Thank you!
Questions?