Electronic Resource Management and Rights Expression for Libraries

1. Electronic Resource Management and Rights Expression for Libraries Nathan D.M. Robertson University of Maryland School of Law “The Future of the Federal Library” Washington, DC 14 September 2005

2. Talk Outline • Electronic Resource Management • Problem • Solutions • Outstanding Problems • Rights Expression • Issues • Initiatives

3. Electronic Resource Management

4. ERM : The Problem “As libraries have worked to incorporate electronic resources into their collections, services and operations, most have found their existing Integrated Library Systems to lack important functionality to support these new resources.” — Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Management Initiative, August 2004

5. Administrative URL . and usernames and passwords Data Fields Vendor technical contact Authorized users Cure period for breach Permission to ILL Authorized locations Provider Product trial Maintenance window Governing jurisdiction Number of concurrent users License reviewer Indemnification by licensee License period Permission to Archive Title (245) Vendor (acq) IP registration instructions Proxy server status Access URL (856) Publisher (260) Consortial pricing structure Z39.50 attributes Renewal period (acq) Perpetual Access Subscriber branding Public display? (staff-only) Scholarly sharing permission Troubleshooting/ incident log Citation requirements

6. Electronic Version Electronic Version Package Package Title Title Title Title Title Data Relationships Print Version Electronic Version License Interface License License

7. Workflow • Workflow in the print world is relatively easy • Physical object moves to prompt action • Processes within existing systems act or prompt action • Systems and needs are well-established • Not so in the e-world • No physical object • No existing systems • Systems are new

8. What You Need to Know, When You Need to Know It. . . . • Context-sensitive presentation of information • Only ILL staff need to know about ILL limitations • Only authorized users need to see e-journal (maybe) • Relevant data relationships • Print cancellation and e-access • Consortial responsibilities, pricing • Ticklers

9. ERM: Solutions • Data. . . . • Relationships. . . . • Workflow management. . . . • Relevant, task-specific data presentation. . . . We need: StandardsandSoftware!

10. Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI) • Informal meeting, ALA Annual 2001 • Exploratory NISO/DLF workshop, May 2002 • Official DLF Initiative in October 2002: • Describe architectures needed to manage large collections of licensed e-resources • Establish lists of elements and definitions • Write and publish XML Schemas/DTDs • Promote best practices and standards for data interchange

11. DLF ERMI Report, August 2004 http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlfermi0408 • Final Report • Appendices: • A: Functional Requirements • B: Workflow Flowchart • C: Entity Relationship Diagram • D: Data Element Dictionary • E: Data Structure • F: XML Investigation

12. ERMI Report • Describes the problem • Outlines existing solutions and efforts • MIT’s VERA • JHU’s HERMES • UCLA’s ERDb • Penn State’s ERLIC2 • … many others • Introduces the appendices. . . .

13. ERMI A: Functional Requirements • 47 major requirements in 8 categories • over 150 itemized requirements excerpt: 27. Store license rights and terms for reference, reporting, and control of services 27.1 For services including but not limited to ILL, reserves, distance education, course web sites, and course packs: 27.1.1 Identify whether a given title may be used for the service and under what conditions 27.1.2 Generate reports of all materials that may or may not be used for the service with notes about conditions

14. ERMI B: Workflow • Lifecycle of an e-resource from initial consideration to cessation • 28 decision points • 46 action items

15. ERMI C: ERD

16. ERMI D: Data Element Dictionary • Almost 350 data elements with definitions excerpt:

17. ERMI E: Data Structure • Data elements of Appendix D structured to show logical groupings and relationships excerpt:

18. ERMI F: XML Investigation • Decision to pursue “proof of concept” schemas covering licensing data elements • DRM technologies and licensing • Sample ERMI license data use cases • Schemas for licensing elements, implementing: • ODRL • Create Commons RDF • “Native” ERMI schema

19. Vendor Response to ERMI We Win!! • ILS-based products in release or under development • Serial vendor-based solutions

20. Standards Development • ERMI is not a “standard” • Recommended functionality and data fields • A way (not the only way) to build relationships • Shibboleth • ONIX for Serials • Packages • Coverage/Holdings • But what about . . . • Identifiers? Licenses? Interoperability?

21. Outstanding Issues • Consortia • Usage Statistics • Standardization • License Interpretation • Rights Expression

22. License Rights Expression for Libraries

23. But Licenses are Rights, Right? • Licenses define some rights • Law defines some rights • Interpretations of licenses and law define some rights • Licenses include non-rights-related administrative information that libraries want in “actionable” form, e.g.:

24. “Actionable?” What Actions? • Communicate to users: “Licensee shall instruct all Users using the Database or output therefrom to give proper attribution to Licensor for any data extracted from the Database as follows:” • Communicate to staff: “[Licensor] grants Subscriber the right to use certain of the Subscribed Content as source material for interlibrary loans on an experimental, article-by-article basis and under the following conditions....” • Systematic action and calculation “Publisher may terminate this agreement ... in the event of a material breach by Licensee if such breach has not been cured within sixty (60) days of written notice from Publisher....” • Reporting

25. Okay, libraries want License expression … but what about Rights? • Absolutely! • Eager to have a standardized way to capture rights, restrictions, and obligations so that our systems can communicate them to library staff and users. • Very useful to have a shared communication standard to share license & rights expressions with partners. • Absolutely Not! • No machine enforcement! And why not? • Machine enforcement requires absolutely explicit, very granular expressions.

26. What’s wrong with explicit expressions? • Licenses define some rights • Law defines some rights • Interpretations of licenses and law define some rights “[Adjudicating fair use] is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” [Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)]

27. Ambiguity can be desirable China Alters Language On Taiwan By Philip P. Pan Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, May 13, 2005 BEIJING, May 12 -- Chinese President Hu Jintao proposed new diplomatic language Thursday aimed at ending the decades-old state of hostilities between China and Taiwan […] Under the new language, Hu effectively agreed to open talks if Taiwan accepted the principle of "two shores, one China" while acknowledging that the two sides might differ on precisely what that term meant.

28. Permission Values via RELs • Permitted (explicit) • Permitted (interpreted) • Prohibited (explicit) • Prohibited (interpreted) • Silent (uninterpreted) • Not Applicable …does not suffice • Licenses do not explicitly say everything user can do with a digital object • Partners include consortia, with whom we need to share information about silence and license interpretations

29. Developments in License Expression • NISO Initiative on DRM • Community’s “core requirements” document • Reference model • EDItEUR ONIX for Licensing Terms • “wide-ranging ONIX schema for the description of licensing terms and resource usage permissions and policies” • Publisher License Terms Format draft released in August 2005 • Plans to develop a joint DLF/EDItEUR/NISO steering group to guide work

30. Questions and Comments Nathan D.M. Robertson nrobertson@law.umaryland.edu