Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick

HARRASSOWITZBooksellers & Subscription Agents

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 1

Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Really Need It!

ER&L 2010

Austin, Texas

February 1, 2010

Tina Feick

I2 (Institutional Identifiers) Working Group

NISO created – July 2008

www.niso.org/workrooms/I2

Co-ChairsGrace Agnew, Rutgers University

Oliver Pesch, EBSCO (2nd Phase)

Tina Feick, HARRASSOWITZ (1st Phase)

ConsultantHelen Henderson, Ringgold

02012010 Tina Feick 2

How do you identify your institution?

HOW MANY ARE YOU TRACKING?


MARC

ORG

CODE

NUC

HANDLE

PUR

L

FE

DO

RA

ID

OCLCIDENTIFIER

UUID

ISILARK

DOI

CONSORTIA

INTERNALLYASSIGNED

DSPACE

Institutional Identifier – I2 – Working Group - Defined

“The NISO working group will develop a standard for an institutional identifier that can be implemented in all library and publishing environments. The standard will include definition of the metadata required to be collected with the identifier and what uses can be made of that metadata.”

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 4

I2 – Goal and Objectives

Goal – support the user who wants smooth and seamless access to information

Develop scenarios with most compelling use cases – identify needs and engage all stakeholders

Identify a robust, interoperable, and unique identifier – examine existing id standards

Identify and resolve issues – granularity

Identify core metadata for identifier

Identify an implementation and sustainability model

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 5

Identifier Concept

Standard identifier for each institution

Same identifier to be used across publishers and agents

Define hierarchies and combinations (consortia)

Define publishers, agents, online hosts, etc.


Same Identifier for all Publishers

Institution Identifier = 123456789X

Pub 1

123456789X Pub 2

Pub 3

Same Identifier with each publisher

(Publisher Cooperation Essential)


Same Identifier Travels with OrderCreates Matchpoint

Example:

University of Texas = 123456789X

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 8

LIBRARY(Order) AGENT

PUBLISHER

ONLINEHOSTS

USAGESTATS

I2 Approach

Stakeholders

Scenarios

Work plan

Timescale


Stakeholders

Libraries

Agents (vendors)

Publishers

Aggregators

Hosting services

Fulfilment services

Academics

Institutional repositories

Students

Authors

Editors

Reviewers

Manuscript systems

Funding bodies

Academic administrators

Rights agencies

Consortia

eLearning vendors/services

Doctors

State-wide/national agencies


Issues

Granularity

Hierarchy

Interoperability

Appropriate for the e-world

Uniqueness

International

More than just acquisitions

Agreement

Registries

Authentication

Population of systems


Scenarios

A - Electronic Resources Supply Chain

B/C – Institutional Repositories

D - Library Resource Management


Where is the pain?

First Task for each scenario - Pinpoint the pain --

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 13

Scenario A – Electronic Supply Chain

Across all Sectors

Section Leader

Libraries Cindy Hepfer, Univ. of Buffalo

Intermediaries (Agents, Online Hosts, Aggregators)

Tina Feick, HARRASSOWITZHelen Henderson, Ringgold

Publishers Andrea Lopez, Annual Reviews

Research Janifer Gatenby, OCLC

Systems Peter McCracken, SerialsSolutions

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 14

Scenario A - Background

Based on the Journal Supply Chain Pilot Project – www.journalsupplychain.com

British Library, HighWire Press, Oxford University Press, Ringgold, Swets

Each organization – own way of recognizing customers and users

Each section – list of transactions with identifier for and to each sector

Over 100 transactions

Determined pain areas


Scenario – Electronic Resources – Pains – Where is the need?

Missing issues – subscription not starting

Lost access to electronic journals

Confusion over renewals

Problems with titles that moved to a new publisher.

Resolve issues with identifier

Accurate (and quick) entry of order

Change in agents

Change in publishers

Change in online hosts

Update in IP ranges02012010 Tina Feick 16

Usage Statistics – IDENTIFIER NEEDED

Differentiate libraries in consortia

Multi-site library

Publishers use the same identifier

Aggregator – offers to publishersEBSCO Publishing – December 2009

Include Ringgold Identifier in stats reports

Support COUNTER & SUSHIwww.projectcounter.org – www.niso.org

COUNTER 3 – includes SUSHI


Identifier in use in Electronic Supply Chain

Open identify database – Ringgold Identifierwww.openidentify.com

165,000 institutions

Staff maintains database

Recently added hierarchy analysis

Free access

45 publishers

With DataSalon created hierarchy tree display for institutions

Consortia membership recorded


Core Registry MetadataTypes of information

Version 8 – September 2009

Data Element

Sub-Element or Attribute

Attribute Definition – language, type, etc.

Obligation (Mandatory/optional/conditional)

Repeatable – y/n

Controlled Vocabulary – country codes, etc.

Usage Note

Comments

Function02012010 Tina Feick 19

Core Metadata Elements

M - Institutionidentifier – “dumb number”

O - Variantidentifier – Alternate or supplementary identifier

M - Name

O - Variantname

M - Location – city, region, country, language

O - URL

O - Domain

O - Relatedinstitution – type

M = Mandatory O = Optional


Scenario – Institutional Repositories – Survey – July 2009

Repository Managers and Developers

Prominent repositories and selected from OpenDOAR, a directory of open access repositories – 100 respondents

Identified mailing lists – Appendix A of report on website & listed on personal blogs

Aware that academic dominated

165 responses – 102 answered every question

Full report on website – www.niso.org/workingrooms/I2

Article – ISQ, v.21:4, Fall 2009

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 21

IR Survey Results – “SURVEY SAYS”

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 22

Scenario D – Library Resource Management - Survey

Identified workflows to be addressed

116 responses; 106 answered all

Listservs

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 23

Library Resource Management Workflows Identified

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 24

Library Workflow

Library Resources Survey Results

52% use identifiers

66% likely and somewhat likely to implement

OCLC Identifier – major one used (ILL)

Accepted core elements

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 25

ISNI – International Standard Name Identifier

http://www.isni.org

Draft Standard - ISO 27729

Global identification system of public identities of parties - publicly known name

Natural person, fictional character, legal entity

Authors, composers, performers, etc.

16 numerical digits – last digit – check digit

“bridge” identifier – connect information

Discussions underway

02/01/2010 Tina Feick 26

Identifier Standards

MARC Organization Code (MARC21)

OCLC Symbol (Contribute to WorldCat)

SAN (Standard Address Number)

DUNS (D&B Proprietary)

ISIL (International Standard Identifier for Libraries and Related Organisations )

ISDIAH (International Standard for Describing Institutions with Archival Holdings Information)

ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier)

OCLC WorldCat Registry


I2 Accomplishments – Phase I

Scenario Analysis

Surveys

Metadata Explored and Defined

Promotion


Delays, Debate and Angst


Phase II – What’s Ahead?

Evaluation and selection of identifier standard – review available standards

Support for metadata registry

Applicability for each broad scenario

Ease of adoption and use

Interoperability or ease of transition for legacy systems

Finalize I2 metadata

Implementation and maintenance strategy

Stakeholder feedback


Timeline

Escalating work through December 2010

Webinars to get feedback with various sectors


Thank You for your Support!!!!

Tina Feick

Director of Sales and Marketing

HARRASSOWITZ

European Booksellers and

Global Subscription Agents

email: [email protected]

phone: 1-800-348-6886

website: www.harrassowitz.de


Education

Institutional Identifier Standard: Yes, We Need It! - Tina Feick