Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables: NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review

The Serials Librarian From the Printed Page to the Digital Age ISSN: 0361-526X (Print) 1541-1095 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wser20 Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables: NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Bob McQuillan Presenter To cite this article: Bob McQuillan Presenter (2012) Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables: NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review, The Serials Librarian, 62:1-4, 112-124, DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2012.652482 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2012.652482 Published online: 12 Apr 2012. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 271 View related articles Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=wser20 Download by: [37.44.204.191] Date: 02 December 2017, At: 03:09

The Serials Librarian, 62:112 124, 2012 Copyright The North American Serials Interest Group, Inc. ISSN: 0361-526X print/1541-1095 online DOI: 10.1080/0361526X.2012.652482 Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables: NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review BOB MCQUILLAN Presenter Seven years after the Digital Library Foundation s (DLF) pioneering 2004 Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) report, challenges with electronic resource management (ERM) system implementation, interoperability, management, and workflow issues remain. In 2009 the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) formed the ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Steering Committee to undertake a gap analysis of ERM-related data, standards, and best practices with current and future e-resources management needs in mind. In this session a member of the Steering Committee presented an overview of the project and focused on initial results of the review, including mappings from the DLF ERMI data dictionary to a range of other current standards and best practices. This presentation was based on the draft of an unpublished discussion paper authored by the members of the NISO ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review Steering Committee. KEYWORDS National Information Standards Organization (NISO), standards, best practices, Digital Library Federation (DLF), Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI) INTRODUCTION Public discussion of standards related to electronic resource management (ERM) systems can be traced to a May 2002 Pre-standardization workshop held in Chicago and co-sponsored by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) and the Digital Library Federation (DLF). That event led to creation in October 2002 of the DLF s Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), which resulted in the publication of what became known 112

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 113 as the ERMI Report in August 2004. 1 The Report asserted the need for comprehensive electronic resource management systems to provide support for the life cycle of electronic resources, including these functions: selection and acquisition, access provision, resource administration, user support and troubleshooting (staff and end users), and renewal and retention. To help do so, the report provided a number of closely related documents, including a data dictionary that encompassed a wide range of data elements (including the following examples: license permissions and constraints, user IDs, passwords, administrative information, contacts for support and troubleshooting, as well as cancellation restrictions and price caps). The data dictionary was supported and further elaborated upon by a data structure document and an entity relationship diagram. The report also identified a number of outstanding issues, such as consortium support and functionality, usage data handling and reporting, and data standards including serials description and holdings, standard identifiers, license term expression and interoperability. These considerations led to the launch of an ERMI 2 project, also under DLF auspices, which undertook several sub-projects. Two of these developed into what are now the NISO Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) and Cost of Resource Exchange (CORE) projects. In addition, training materials in support of license mapping (the practice of analyzing and encoding license terms for incorporation into ERM systems) were developed and provided to participants in the four workshops offered as part of the project. An effort to review the ERMI Data Dictionary (DD) and data structure documents was also identified as part of the initiative, but could not be pursued at the time due to competing commitments on the part of those most able to undertake it. 2 NISO ERM DATA STANDARDS AND BEST PRACTICES REVIEW Market developments, anecdotal evidence from some of their colleagues, and in some cases personal experience with ERM development and implementations prompted some of the participants in the ERMI 1 and 2 projects to begin discussing a follow-up project to determine whether the ERMI DD and structure should become the bases for formal ERM data standards. To assess the need for such a project, NISO organized and facilitated focus group meetings with a range of stakeholders during the ALA Midwinter conference in January 2009. Many stakeholders did report that they continued to feel that the ERMI data model was still important, and that the data dictionary plays an

114 Strategy Sessions important role in promoting interoperability. However, other topics began to surface. For instance, some librarians found their ERMs to be underdeveloped, and faulted them for their lack of functionality with respect to importing and exporting data, and supporting everyday business activities and functions. Others felt that they needed help establishing and refining local workflows and best practices. The challenge of making complex license documents comprehensible and actionable for users and staff was another often-expressed concern. These conversations led to formation shortly afterward of a steering committee to design and conduct an ERM Data Standards and Best Practices Review under NISO auspices. As described in the proposal that the group submitted to and which was accepted by the NISO Business Information Topic Committee, they were charged to perform a gap analysis regarding ERM-related data, standards, and best practices, begin the analysis with a review of the ERMI DD, mapping elements to other relevant standards projects, and consult with vendors, libraries using ERM systems and other stakeholders for additional feedback on data requirements and ERM system implementation and management issues. Project deliverables were to include recommendations on the future of the ERMI DD, descriptions of typical challenges libraries face in using currently available ERM systems and services, and an inventory and description of gaps in interoperability and best practices. 3 STANDARDS AND BEST PRACTICE CATEGORIES AND INITIATIVES REVIEWED In preparation of this project, the Steering Committee noted the distinction between standards and best practices, and the role standards organizations play in the development and governance of these standards and best practices. As a next step, the Steering Committee approved the following five categories of ERM-related standards and best practices for its review process, as previously defined by committee member Rafal Kasprowski: 4 1. Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases 2. Work, Manifestations, and Access Points 3. Cost and Usage-Related Data 4. License Terms 5. Data Exchange Using Institutional Identifiers See Table 1 for a summary of the ERM-related standards and best practices pertaining to each of these categories.

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 115 TABLE 1 ERM-Related Standards, Best Practices, and Related Initiatives Acronym Name Synopsis For more information 1. Link Resolvers and Knowledge Bases 1.1 OpenURL Open Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 1.2 KBART Knowledge Bases and Related Tools 1.3 IOTA Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics Standardized format of URL intended to enable Internet users to more easily find a copy of a resource that they are allowed to access Aimed at smoother interaction between members of knowledge base supply chain Initiative to improve OpenURL performance by analyzing log files 2. Work, Manifestations, and Access Points 2.1 DOI Digital Object Identifier System System for persistent identification of content on digital networks 2.2 MARC 21 Machine Readable Catalog 2.3 ONIX for Serials ONline Information exchange for Serials 2.3.1 SOH ONIX Serials Online Holdings 2.3.2 SPS ONIX Serials Products and Subscriptions 2.3.3 SRN ONIX Serials Release Notification 2.4 ONIX for Books ONIX for Books 2.5 PIE-J Recommended Practice for the Presentation and Identification of E-journals Standards for representation and communication of bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form XMLSchemafor representing serials industry product information To communicate holdings or coverage information Defines messages for Serial Subscription Product information Defines messages for publication or availability of serials releases For representing and communicating book industry product information in electronic form Focus on title presentation and bibliographic history, accurate use of ISSN and citation practice http://www.oclc.org/ research/activities/ openurl http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/kbart http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/ openurlquality http://www.doi.org/ http://www.loc.gov/ marc/ http://www.editeur. org/84/overview/ http://www.editeur. org/18/current- Releases/#SOH http://www.editeur. org/18/current- Releases/#SPS http://www.editeur. org/18/current- Releases/#SRN http://www.editeur. org/83/overview/ http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/piej (Continued)

116 Strategy Sessions TABLE 1 (Continued) Acronym Name Synopsis For more information 2.6 TRANSFER TRANSFER Guidelines for transfer of journals from publisher to publisher 3. Cost and Usage-Related Data 3.1 NISO CORE Cost of Resource Exchange 3.2 COUNTER Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources 3.3 SUSHI Standardized Usage Harvesting Initiative 4. License Terms 4.1 ONIX-PL ONIX for Publications Licenses 4.2 SERU Shared Electronic Resource Understanding To facilitate ILS to ERM transfer of cost and related financial information Sets standards facilitate consistent recording and reporting of online usage statistics Defines an automated request and response model for the harvesting of e-resource usage statistics XML format for licenses under which libraries and other institutions use digital resources Set of Statements of Common Understandings for Subscribing to Electronic Resources 5. Data Exchange Using Institutional Identifiers 5.1 I 2 Institutional Identifiers Developing a standard for an institutional identifier for library and publishing environments 5.2 Shibboleth Shibboleth System Software for web single sign-on across or within organizational boundaries 5.3 vcard vcard (Orig. Versit Card) Schema for electronic business cards http://www.uksg.org/ transfer http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/core http://www. projectcounter.org/ http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/sushi http://www.editeur. org/21/onix-pl/ http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/seru http://www.niso.org/ workrooms/i2 http://shibboleth. internet2.edu/ http://www.imc.org/ pdi/vcardoverview. html The goal of this part of the project was to identify areas of overlap between a given standard or best practice and the ERMI DD. Based on their interest in and familiarity with the different standards and best practices, Steering Committee members were asked to work from related standards and best practices, analyze them carefully, compare them to the ERMI DD,

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 117 determine correspondence and overlap, compare meanings and uses, and determine whether the DD should address the topic or area represented by the standard, or if it (with possible revisions) is sufficient to address ERM needs. Link Resolvers and Knowledgebases Standards and best practices related to link resolvers and knowledgebases include OpenURL, Knowledge Base and Related Tools (KBART), and Improving OpenURL through Analytics (IOTA). OpenURL, formally known as ANSI/NISO Z39.88, has become so ubiquitous within the marketplace that it is considered a given and does not fall under the scope of the mapping process. Findings related to KBART and IOTA were communicated next. KBART, launched as a best practice in January 2008, offers improvements in OpenURL linking and improvements in the accuracy and timeliness of metadata in ERM systems. KBART Phase II is currently underway with plans to build upon Phase I s recommendation. KBART had among the fewest data elements of the standards and best practices that were mapped. Approximately 50 percent of the sixteen data elements identified in this message format did not map to elements defined in the DLF ERMI document. Another 38 percent of the elements were partial mappings. Some KBART data elements, namely embargo and coverage, were broader than ERMI; some were more granular than ERMI (including elements related to volumes and issues online); while others had no mapping equivalent in ERMI. The Steering Committee fully endorses the KBART Recommended Best Practice, and suggests that it would be useful to utilize the granularity of KBART elements in ERMI. IOTA was formed by NISO in January 2010 to develop a communityrecognized index for measuring the quality of source OpenURL links generated by content providers. 5 IOTA is supported by the KBART initiative in its Phase I Recommended Practice Report and, in March 2011, both groups began a joint effort to study the causes of failures in target OpenURLs, which couple link resolvers to content providers. As of the conference presentation, Steering Committee members were still reviewing IOTA. The Work, Manifestations, and Access Points The work, manifestations, and access points group of initiatives is the largest, composed of these: Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs); MARC 21 Standards; Online Information Exchange (ONIX) for Serials and its related formats: Serials Online Holdings (SOH), Serials Products and Subscriptions (SPS), and Serials Release Notification (SRN); and TRANSFER. Steering Committee members are also at this time reviewing ONIX for Books, the Recommended

118 Strategy Sessions Practice for the Presentation and Identification of E-journals (PIE-J), and several identifier systems, including International Standard Book Number (ISBN)-13, International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)-L, and International Standard Text Code (ISTC). The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system was approved as a standard in 2010; its purpose is to identify digital objects across the Internet persistently. As of this writing, no effort has been made to map individual ERMI terms to those utilized by the DOI System. It is possible that the Vocabulary Mapping Framework project could provide potential for greater harmonization and interoperability among many of the content schemes examined in this report, including the ERMI DD. MARC 21 Standards provide the systematic capability of reading and transmitting bibliographic data, and serve as the foundation of the online library catalog. The MARC Standards for Bibliographic, Authority, and Holdings data are developed and maintained by the Library of Congress and the Library and Archives Canada. The DLF ERMI Steering Committee envisioned an interoperable ERM system: a world in which pertinent descriptive metadata would be inherited from the catalog record, as would other data be inherited from relevant integrated library system (ILS) modules. ERMs rely on basic descriptive metadata to identify an electronic resource properly and distinguish it from other electronic products. The MARC 21 Bibliographic Standard supplies the structure for a robust description, defining hundreds of data fields and subfields. The ERMI DD maps identically with most key MARC 21 descriptive fields and/or subfields (i.e., title, system control number, main entry fields, subjects, etc.). The data which extend beyond the margins of the MARC format are those associated with the dropping and adding of resources from one online provider, platform, or aggregator to another. Yet commercial ERM systems are driven by a knowledgebase that provides basic information about a resource, and the dropping and adding of titles from one provider to another, however, is generally not accounted for in these knowledgebases. Unless the library keeps that information in a different location (a spreadsheet or database, for instance), this information is lost, causing difficulty in keeping track of individual titles which drop in and out of aggregations and packages. Related information regarding previous and subsequent titles are also not tracked in some ERMs, which are effectively tracked in MARC. It is recommended that ERMs make better use of Electronic Resource Title Continues (MARC 780); Electronic Resource Title Continued By (MARC 785); and Uniform Title (MARC 130; 240). ONIX for Serials is a family of XML formats for communicating information about serial products and subscription information. 6 Generally speaking, the Steering Committee found that the structure of the ONIX family of messages translated into many ontological differences between the ONIX message format and the DLF ERMI elements, and direct one-to-one mapping

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 119 is not always clear. In many cases, the ONIX messages support a much more granular definition of the value for a specific element, and it would be useful to utilize the granularity of the data elements found in the ONIX format in ERMI DD. In other cases, the ONIX values could be expanded to include DLF ERMI-defined data elements to support a wider range of values for the term. The presenter provided specific examples for these three formats related to ONIX for Serials: Serials Online Holdings (SOH), Serials Products and Subscriptions (SPS), and Serials Release Notifications (SRN). SOH messages are used for communicating information about the holdings or coverage of online serial resources from a party that holds or supplies the resources to a party that needs this information in its systems. Approximately half of the 26 data elements identified in Serials Online Holdings message format did not map to elements defined in the DLF ERMI document. An example is the ONIX element term Epublication format code. The ONIX supported values are HTML, PDF, XML, SGML, ASCII, LaTEX, and TEX. The best mapped DLF ERMI element would be format. The Serials Products and Subscriptions (SPS) format defines a family of messages used for transmitting information about serial subscription products, with or without price information, and with or without subscription information relating to a particular subscriber. As was true of SOH, approximately half of the 33 data elements identified in this message format did not map to elements defined in the ERMI DD. An example is the ONIX element term Embargo type/count back unit. The ONIX supported values are number of issues, number of days, number of months, and number of years, while the best mapped DLF ERMI element would be embargo period. The Serials Release Notification (SRN) format defines a family of messages designed to support information exchanges about the planned or confirmed publication or electronic availability of one or more serial releases. Again, approximately half of the 49 data elements identified in the Serials Release Notification (SRN) format did not map to elements defined in the ERMI DD. An example is the ONIX element term Person name part type. The ONIX supported values are TitlesBeforeNames, NamesBeforeKey, PrefixToKey, KeyNames, NamesAfterKey, SuffixToKey, LettersAfterNames, and TitlesAfterNames. There is no readily identifiable DLF ERMI element to match this term. The Transfer Code of Practice responds to the expressed needs of the scholarly journal community for consistent guidelines to help publishers ensure that journal content remains easily accessible by librarians and users when there is a transfer between parties, and to ensure that the transfer process occurs with minimum disruption. 7 The majority (58 percent) of the one hundred ninety-eight data elements identified in this message format did not map to elements defined in the ERMI DD. Another 30 percent were partial maps to ERMI. Most of the non-corresponding elements involved data of interest only to the parties (publishers) involved in the process of transferring

120 Strategy Sessions property (i.e., titles). These elements included payment information, revenue earning method, sales territory, quantity of print copies and files remaining on the platform. Transfer elements that either support a more granular definition of value or are non-existent in ERMI could be utilized in some form in ERMI included archiving arrangement for backfile content, Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources (COUNTER) compliancy, online subscription type, re-registration activation code, Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for re-registration, and URL for backfile content archive. The Steering Committee fully endorses the Transfer Code of Practice. Integration of Usage and Cost-Related Data Standards and initiatives related to the integration of usage and cost-related data include NISO s CORE initiative, Project COUNTER, and the SUSHI Standard (ANSI/NISO z39.93-2007). The purpose of the CORE specification is to facilitate the transfer of cost and related financial information from an ILS acquisitions module to an ERM system. Approximately half of the 37 data elements identified in this message format did not map to elements defined in the DLF ERMI document. Additionally, CORE relies on communication and agreements between trading partners that could result in multiple definitions of a single element depending on how it is implemented. The general consensus was that NISO CORE does include many valuable data elements that could be incorporated into ERMI DD but the definitions in CORE and other NISO standards could benefit from a more structured definition of common data elements across the NISO standards. Beginning in March 2002, COUNTER set standards as an international initiative to serve library, publishers, and intermediaries to efficiently record and report usage data of online electronic resources. Based on its internationalization and industry-wide commitment to format statistics within COUNTER, it is appropriate for the ERMI data model to accept COUNTER fully within its recommended best practices. The SUSHI Protocol standard defines a request and response model for the automated harvesting of usage statistics of electronic resources through a Web services framework. SUSHI compliance is required for usage statistics formatted according to COUNTER Release 3, but SUSHI can transmit non-counter reports that meet the specified retrieval requirements set by SUSHI. Because it is a data transmission protocol, it is not necessary to map SUSHI to an ERMI data model, as the protocol simply defines the requirements of system request and response messages rather than the data transmitted. To sustain the operability between SUSHI and COUNTER, NISO will maintain the COUNTER XML report schema so SUSHI and COUNTER schemas remain in sync.

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 121 Coding License Terms and Defining Consensus ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL) and Shared E-Resource Understanding (SERU) are the two initiatives related to coding license terms and defining consensus. ONIX-PL is a member of the ONIX for Licensing Terms family developed and maintained by EDItEUR. As one of those formats, ONIX-PL is an XML format for the communication of license terms for digital publications in a structured and substantially encoded form, designed to serve the interests of all parties in the licensing chain. 8 ONIX-PL development has been ongoing for a number of years and has resulted in the publication of a number of documents. The Steering Committee noted that uptake on ONIX-PL has been low so far, but acknowledged several ONIX-PL license expression projects have been completed to date. These include the RELI project led by Loughborough University (UK), which demonstrated proof-of-concept, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC, based in UK) encoding project of approximately 80 licenses, and the Ontario Council of University Libraries (Canada) encoding project of approximately thirty licenses. 9 The committee noted that ONIX-PL support has been lacking among publishers and ERM system vendors, due partly to libraries not asking for this support, and also perceived complexity among stakeholders. During the initial mapping process, the committee noted that 15 usage and 26 general terms have no ERMI equivalent. Key differences noted were the extensive reliance on notes and use of interpreted values in ERMI, while ONIX-PL offered more granularity with its license terms and use of value qualifiers. There continues to be discussion among various libraries, publishers, and system vendors on which approach is a more viable solution; however certain stakeholders advocate developing a third approach under a standards framework. As of July 2011, the committee is still in discussion on its final recommendation. Launched in 2007 and sponsored by NISO, SERU is a statement that describes common understandings related to e-resource subscriptions. Libraries and publishers that utilize SERU elect to forgo a license by referencing SERU s common understandings. For e-resource specialists, SERU provides the promise of streamlining the acquisition and licensing of electronic resources, thereby providing lower overhead and quicker access for the end user. SERU was a challenge to map primarily because it is meant to be ambiguous. Unlike other standards and best practices, SERU intentionally did not produce a list of data elements. Of the four data elements identified in the SERU Recommended Practice document, only one term, subscriber, is clearly defined. Three other elements (authorized user population, educational institution, andpublic libraries and other cultural institutions) are loosely defined. Two of the three were partial maps to ERMI while the final element did not map to any ERMI elements. In an effort to identify possible additional data elements, the SERU statement was examined and yielded an additional 33 elements. Of these, a full 30 percent did not map to ERMI, while

122 Strategy Sessions approximately 41 percent were partial maps, which left 29 percent with identical mappings. Three of these elements (content additional to subscription, trusted third party, andthird party archive) could be valuable additions to the ERMI data dictionary. The Steering Committee fully endorses the SERU Recommended Best Practice as a means toward achieving the important goal of simplifying the license negotiation process, while recognizing that there are probably practical limits to how extensively it is likely to be adopted. Data Exchange Using Institutional Identifiers NISO s Institutional Identifier (I 2 ) project, Shibboleth, and vcard are three projects examined for data exchange using institutional identifiers. The I 2 project supports the exchange of information within the information supply chain, which includes publishers, vendors, consortia, and libraries. As such, I 2 provides a robust, scalable, and interoperable standard that uniquely identifies institutions in the journal supply chain. The standard utilizes a globally unique identifier string and metadata to identify institutions and describe relationships between entities within an institution as well as provide uses for the application of the metadata. For electronic resources specialists, I 2 provides a solution for improving problematic e-resources processes, particularly access and activation issues, throughout the information supply chain. Seven of the nineteen data elements identified in this message format did not map to elements defined in the DLF ERMI document. Another eight elements mapped either partially or completely, depending on the final metadata utilized. ERMI, in general, was more granular than I 2. For example, with location, I 2 identifies country, state or region and then stops at the city level. I 2 s intent is to leave the deeper level of granularity to sub-registries that track address information. The I 2 data element institutional identifier would be useful to utilize in ERMI and as such may require ERM vendors to enhance or re-purpose fields to accommodate the additional element. Once the I 2 work on institutional relationships is completed, there may be additional elements of value that could apply to ERMI. The Steering Committee fully endorses the I 2 standard. Shibboleth is open source authentication software providing single signon capabilities across an institution s Web space through the use of Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Metadata. Although a rudimentary mapping can be made to a handful of DLF ERMI data elements, the majority of SAML elements exist for a distinctly different purpose. Shibboleth software holds certain metadata about a particular user, and exchanges that data with a service provider, while ERMI defines users in an effort to identify those who should be allowed to access a licensed resource. In essence, Shibboleth authenticates the user that could be associated with the ERMI definitions of user group and authenticated users. There is no need for the ERMI DD to expand into the domain of Shibboleth metadata, but an

Gateway to Improving ERM System Deliverables 123 effort to standardize the way institutional software identifies users would be recommended. The vcard specification was originally developed by an industry consortium called Versit consisting of Apple, IBM, AT&T, and Siemens, and is now a standard maintained by the Internet Mail Consortium. While it is difficult to tell definitively, vcard seems to be in common use, and 2.1 is the most commonly used and supported version. According to the specification, vcard is intended to be used for exchanging information about people and resources by creating an electronic business card object. 10 Aligning the ERMI Data Dictionary with the vcard standard could be very useful for capturing and storing organizational contact information of various kinds, such as sales reps, vendor executives, and library or consortia representatives. While vcard appears to be designed for contact information about individuals rather than organizations, it is possible to use it for the latter. And since vcard supports structured data (e.g. surname, given name) and the typing of attributes (for instance, office, fax, ormobile phone number), it is more flexible than the current ERMI design. Only modest adjustments would be required to the ERMI DD to bring it into conformity with compatible vcard fields. Because the current ERMI DD provides for a more limited set of information about organizations than vcard, it is desirable to investigate it further for possible adoption as an ERMI standard. Examples of functions that vcard support could add to ERMs include: Authority control for organizational names (i.e., in order to reliably associate individual contacts with a given organization) Role identification for individual contacts using a controlled list of commonly understood ERM roles Role identification for organizations (i.e., the role is considered an attribute of the vendor or product to which a given contact is assigned, rather than an attribute of the contact itself) SUMMARY The Steering Committee plans to release a discussion paper draft later in 2011 for public review and feedback. The final draft with recommendations will follow. The discussion paper draft includes the initial summary of mapping review findings and recommendations on the standards and best practices discussed during this presentation. NOTES 1. T. Jewell et al., Electronic Resource Management: The Report of the DLF Initiative (Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2004), http://www. diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/ (print edition published June 2005).

124 Strategy Sessions 2. T. Jewell, DLF Electronic Resources Management Initiative, Phase II: Final Report (Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, 2008), http://www. diglib.org/standards/ermi2_final_report_20081230.pdf. 3. Digital Library Federation, DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative, Phase II, http:// old.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm05.htm (accessed December 12, 2011). 4. R. Kasprowski, Best Practice & Standardization Initiatives for Managing Electronic Resources, ASIST Bulletin 35, no. 1 (2008): 13 19. 5. For more information and current developments, see Rafal Kasprowski, NISO s IOTA Initiative: Measuring the Quality of OpenURL Links, Serials Librarian 62, no. 1 4 (95 102). 6. EDItEUR, ONIX for Serials, http://www.editeur.org/17/onix-for-serials/ (accessed December 7, 2011). 7. UKSG, Transfer, http://www.uksg.org/transfer (accessed December 7, 2011). 8. EDItEUR, ONIX-PL, http://www.editeur.org/21/onix-pl/ (accessed December 7, 2011). 9. Registry of Electronic Licences, RELI: A Project to Pilot the Development of a Licence Registry: Final Report, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/sharedservices/reli_final_report.pdf (accessed December 12, 2011). 10. IMC, vcard: The Electronic Business Card, http://www.imc.org/pdi/vcardwhite.html (accessed December 12, 2011). CONTRIBUTOR NOTES Bob McQuillan, Senior Product Manager at Innovative Interfaces, Inc., was a presenter and author for this report. Jeff Aipperspach, formerly Senior Product Manager at Serials Solutions, contributed to this report. Ivy Anderson, Director, Collection Development and Management at California Digital Library, contributed to this report. Deberah England, Electronic Resources Librarian at Wright State University Libraries, helped prepare but was unable to present. Tim Jewell, Director of Information Resources and Scholarly Communication at the University of Washington, contributed to this report. Rafal Kasprowski, Electronic Resources Librarian at Rice University, contributed to this report. Tim McGeary, Team Leader for Library Technology at Lehigh University, contributed to this report. Angela Riggio, Interim Head, Scholarly Communication and Licensing at the University of California, Los Angeles, contributed to this report.