![1. Consortia
• Changes to file naming for ALL files.
• Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file
structure.
– [ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[Package
Name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt
– Applicable to Consortia packages and Regional variants
(e.g., “Asia-Pacific”, “Germany”, etc.)
– “Global” value is used if the package
is available for all libraries to
purchase.
15](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/kbart-odi-oami-nasig2014-140602160325-phpapp01/75/NASIG-2014-Actions-and-Updates-on-the-Standards-and-Best-Practices-Front-15-2048.jpg)
NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front
The document discusses the role of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) in developing and maintaining standards related to the information and documentation of published materials. It details the challenges and achievements of various initiatives, including the Knowledge Base and Related Tools (KBART) and the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J), aimed at improving metadata exchange and access for libraries and publishers. Additionally, it highlights the Open Discovery Initiative's efforts to streamline library discovery services and enhance access to open access publications.
More Related Content
Similar to NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
NASIG 2014: Actions and Updates on the Standards and Best Practices Front
- 1. Actions and Updateson the Standards and Best Practices Front Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseye Laurie Kaplan, Proquest NASIG 29th Annual Conference, Fort Worth TX May 3, 2014
- 2. What’s NISO? • Non-profitindustry trade association accredited by ANSI with 150+ members • Mission of developing and maintaining standards related to information, documentation, discovery and distribution of published materials and media • Represent US interests to ISO TC46 (Information and Documentation) and also serve as Secretariat for ISO TC46/SC 9 (Identification and Description) • Responsible for standards like ISSN, DOI, Dublin Core metadata, DAISY digital talking books, OpenURL, SIP, NCIP, MARC records and ISBN (indirectly) • Volunteer driven organization: 400+ spread out across the world
- 3. Premise of “Standards” •Consensus standards created by a community with various stakeholders • Trust • Leading to broader acceptance • Standards as plumbing • Standards facilitate trade, commerce and innovation • Standards reduce costs • Standards support better communication and interoperability across systems
- 4. the process ofstandards creation 4
- 5. Considerations • Value tobe gained • Feasibility • Community(ies) affected • Stakeholders (Vested interests) • Participants required/desired • Timeframes 5
- 6. Today • Knowledge Basesand Related Tools (KBART) • Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J) • Open Discovery Initiative (ODI) • Open Access Metadata and Indicators (OAMI)
- 7. Knowledge Bases andRelated Tools (KBART) Recommended Practice
- 8.
- 9. article citation OpenURL query (baseURL + metadata string) link resolver/ knowledge base target (cited) article publisher website database print collections gateways publisher/provider holdings data repository OpenURL basics
- 10. Where the chainbreaks • Wrong data – Publisher gives wrong metadata for title to the KB – Link resolver uses bad metadata to make link – Link does not resolve to correct target – Dead end • Outdated data – Publisher said it has a particular issue – Link resolver links to an article from it – Issue has been removed – Dead end – Or, provider doesn’t notify that issue is now live – So no traffic from link resolvers to that issue!
- 11. KBART: A simplemetadata exchange format
- 12. Phase II work: 1.Metadata for Consortia 2. Open Access metadata 3. E-book/ Conference Proceeding metadata 12
- 13. 1. Consortia • Surveyresults • Libraries purchase titles as a consortium • Consortium administrators and librarians need the same title-level information from their consortium-purchased packages as they do from “vanilla” publisher packages. • Difficult to obtain accurate consortium- specific title lists. 13
- 14. 1. Consortia • Re-statesthe importance of providing a separate file for each “Global” package that the Content Provider offers. • Consortium-specific files should be created when: – A unique set of titles has been packaged for the consortium, different than the Content Provider’s standard packages. – A package contains unique dates of coverage. 14
- 15. 1. Consortia • Changesto file naming for ALL files. • Addition of “Region/Consortium” value in file structure. – [ProviderName]_[Region/Consortium]_[Package Name]_[YYYY-MM-DD].txt – Applicable to Consortia packages and Regional variants (e.g., “Asia-Pacific”, “Germany”, etc.) – “Global” value is used if the package is available for all libraries to purchase. 15
- 16. 2. Book Series/ Proceedings • Phase I – recommendations were serial-centric – Some fields were dual-purpose • date_first_issue_online • Identifiers – Holding’s content type was ambiguous • Challenges – Both serial and monograph – Users search for both titles • New fields – parent_publication_title_id – preceding_publication_title_id 16
- 17. 2. E-book metadata •Phase II – Specify fields for use by serials and those for use by monographs – disambiguation of usage – 4 new monographic fields added, plus - publication_type - first_editor - parent_publication - preceding_publication_title_id 17
- 18. 3. Open Access •Much more content now available in ‘OA’ form • Importance of facilitating access to both paid and free peer-reviewed, quality publications (not just fee-based material). 18
- 19. 3. Open Access •Challenges – What to do with Hybrid OA models? • Delayed OA – example: free access until one year ago. • Title transfer OA – title changes from OA to paid (or vice versa) upon transfer to another publisher. • Author-paid OA – some articles fee-based. • Full OA – all content is free – Title-level vs. article-level OA metadata 19
- 20. 3. Open Access •Free-text coverage_notes field suggested to explain subtleties of OA availability for that particular title. • New field – access_type – “F” – title is open access or free – “P” – title requires payment of fee of any kind (even if not 100% material is paid) Use repeated fields for hybrid titles with different coverage types 20
- 21. 1. Everything canbe found at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart/endorsement/ 2. Review the requirements (data samples available) 3. Format your title lists accordingly. 4. Self-check to ensure they conform to the recommended practice 5. Ensure that you have a process in place for regular data updates 6. Register your organization on the KBART registry website: http://bit.ly/kbartregistry Publisher Involvement
- 22. NISO – PIE-J Presentationand Identification of Electronic Journals Laurie Kaplan May 3, 2014 NASIG Annual Conference
- 23. Brief History • NISOWorking Group created in October, 2010 • 13 Working Group members representing libraries, publishers/providers, and content solutions vendors • PIE-J finalized as a Recommended Practice, dated March 25, 2013 • Standing Committee created in Sept. 2013 • 10 Committee members
- 24. PIE-J • This RecommendedPractice was developed in order to provide guidance on the presentation of e-journals • particularly in the areas of title presentation, accurate use of ISSN, and citation practices • to publishers and platform providers as well as to solve some long-standing concerns of serials librarians
- 25. PIE-J Highlights The recommendedpractice guidelines address the following: • Retention of title and citation information under which articles were originally published • Display of title histories, including information relating to title changes and related metadata • Display of correct ISSN for different formats and for changed titles • Retention and display of vital publication information across the history of a journal, • including publisher names; clear numbering and dates; editors, editorial boards, and sponsoring organizations; and frequency of publication • Graphic design and inclusion of information that allows easy access to • all content • Special considerations for retroactive digitization
- 26. • Full 67page Recommended Practice includes positive examples of each point listed and additional related Appendix materials. • Available on the NISO site: http://www.niso.org/apps/org/ workgroup/piej/download.php/ 10368/rp-16-2013_pie-j.pdf
- 27. Tri-fold Print Version:Electronic Version: These are both two page brochures focused on the main points in the recommended practice
- 28. Representative Example • One examplesfrom the Appendix • Clearly indicates the point being illustrated • Links in the caption point to the relevant recommendation(s)
- 29. Creation of theStanding Committee • Created in September 2013 • 10 committee members
- 30. What has theSC done? • Review of all sections – Indicate any changes • New document(s) posted – Publisher/Provider letter template • Marketing Efforts – Publicity letter for discussion lists and related newsletters – Presentations at conferences
- 31. PIE-J Document Statistics 4854 974 1459 129 Over7400 Downloads (as of 4/23/14) Full Recommended Practice Print brochure Online brochure New Pie-J Letter
- 32. PIE-J Document Statistics PublishedMarch 2013: • Full Recommended Practice – 4854 downloads • Print Brochure – 974 downloads • Online Brochure – 1459 downloads – These stats rose quickly after the publicity information was sent to various discussions lists and newsletters Published March 2014: • Publisher /Provider letter – 129 downloads As of April 9, 2014
- 33. What can youdo? • Notify publishers/providers when their websites are in compliance with PIE-J, or are confusing or missing relevant information • Work with interested publishers/providers who want to improve their sites: – Sage project with California Digital Library and Becky Culbertson • Send NISO your feedback
- 34. Contact information PIE-J Website: •http://www.niso.org/workrooms/piej Send feedback to: – [email protected] with subject PIE-J Feedback Thank you!
- 35. The Open DiscoveryInitiative
- 36. The context forODI • Emergence of Library Discovery Services solutions – Based on index of a wide range of content – Commercial and open access – Primary journal literature, ebooks, and more • Adopted by thousands of libraries around the world, and impact millions of users 36
- 37. General Goals • Defineways for libraries to assess the level of content providers’ participation in discovery services • Help streamline the process by which content providers work with discovery service vendors • Define models for “fair” linking from discovery services to publishers’ content • Determine what usage statistics should be collected for libraries and for content providers 37
- 38. Balance of Constituents Libraries Publishers ServiceProviders 38 Marshall Breeding, Independent Consultant Jamene Brooks-Kieffer, Kansas State University Laura Morse, Harvard University Ken Varnum, University of Michigan Sara Brownmiller, University of Oregon Lucy Harrison, Florida Virtual Campus (D2D liaison/observer) Michele Newberry, Independent Lettie Conrad, SAGE Publications Jeff Lang, Thomson Reuters Linda Beebe, American Psychological Assoc Aaron Wood, Alexander Street Press Roger Schonfeld, JSTOR, Ithaka Jenny Walker, Independent Consultant John Law, Proquest Michael Gorrell, EBSCO Information Services David Lindahl, University of Rochester (XC) Jeff Penka, OCLC (D2D liaison/observer)
- 39. Subgroups • Technical recommendationsfor data format and data transfer • Communication of library’s rights/Descriptors regarding level of indexing • Definition of fair linking • Exchange of usage data 39
- 40. Deliverables • Vocabulary • NISORecommended Practice – Data format and data transfer – Library rights to specific content – Level of indexing – Fair linking – Usage statistics • Mechanisms to evaluate conformance with recommended practice 40
- 41. Current steps • 30-daypublic comment period Fall 2013 • Working Group evaluation of comments, edits to RP, responses • Working Group approval • Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee approval • NISO Publication 41
- 42. Open Access Metadata andIndicators
- 45. Why is ThisNecessary? Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids = Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and responsibilities = Confusion concerning who can do what when
- 46. Audience Segments • Readers •Authors • Publishers • Funders • Search engines/discovery services • Academic Libraries
- 47. 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
- 48. 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
- 49. “open access” politicallyfraught • 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
- 50. <free_to_read> Tag • Indicatescontent 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”/>
- 51. • Content ofthis 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
- 52. 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
- 53. What’s Next? • PublicReview and Comment period • Working Group will address and potentially incorporate Comments • NISO Approval • NISO Publication as a Recommended Practice
- 54. Benefits of Successful Implementation Growthof 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
- 55. Thank you! Questions? SpringColors! by cerebros1 is licensed under CC-BY