"Next-gen" ERMI: recommendations from the NISO electronic resource management (ERM) gap analysis
Betsy Friesen
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Gap analysis for ERMI - disclaimer - draft recommendations released Thursday, 5/05. Betsy was hoping for an evaluation of workflow but this is a big hole right now per Tim Jewell.
It does not look as if standards are coalescing around ERM; instead they are expanding.
A brief history of ERMI:
Started with Tim Jewell's 2001 research
NISO/DLF ERM standards workshop (2002) - 40 librarians and 7 vendor reps
DLF ERMI report published 2004:
--Focused on relationships - data model - package and constituent relationships
--Information (data dictionary) - license permissions and constraints, user IDS, passwords, admin info; support, troubleshooting conntacts;
--Workflows (functional requirements) - mounting trials and completing licenses
ERMI 2 brings more standards:
SUSHI
CORE
more data dictionaries
Successes?
ERMI never became a standard; it's just out there
Stalled development of standards and products
Vendors abandoning ERM products; impression in the knowledge community that ERM systems are failures (cites titles of various ERM meetings - "failure," "what went wrong," etc.)
Economy means less money to spend on new systems
Preliminary data for gap analysis:
The gap group - 2009
Libraries need help with workflows and best practices
Existing ERM systems available but there are lots of doubts about how helpful they are.
Data exchange is critical - have suffered not being able to pass information between systems.
ERMI data model is still important; data dictionary is the key to functionality and interoperability. Yet there are still questions of whether ERM systems are relevant.
It is important to keep data dictionary so terms are defined and standard
License elements and values need simplification
NISO ERM data standards and best practices review steering committee:
Plan:
Perform gap analysis regarding ERM related data, standards, and best practices
Review data dictionary and mapping elements
Consult with vendors and generate discussion
Deliverables:
Recommend future of ERMI data disctionary
Describe typical challenges libraries face in using currently-available ERM systems and services
Identify gaps in interoperability and best practices
Betsy shows 2 screens of ERM related standards, best practices, and other initiatives
Betsy's question: if there are so many standards and best practices (some conflicting), how is anyone going to improve a system in terms of mapping what publishers do into a system? How do system vendors know what to build into the systems?
Recommendations:
Need:
Modularity, specialized applications
Light-weight, open-ended, flexible standards (Betsy asks, How can you have flexible standards???)
efficient data sharing and transport
Flexible dynamic structures for knitting pieces together where needed
Clear relationships among ERM standards
A NISO ERM Best Practices Framework?
Data Dictionary recommendations?
Discussion points for attendees:
Related title information: eresource title continues/continued by
Definition of common data elements
Granularity of elements
Importance of a data dictionary
It does not look as if standards are coalescing around ERM; instead they are expanding.
A brief history of ERMI:
Started with Tim Jewell's 2001 research
NISO/DLF ERM standards workshop (2002) - 40 librarians and 7 vendor reps
DLF ERMI report published 2004:
--Focused on relationships - data model - package and constituent relationships
--Information (data dictionary) - license permissions and constraints, user IDS, passwords, admin info; support, troubleshooting conntacts;
--Workflows (functional requirements) - mounting trials and completing licenses
ERMI 2 brings more standards:
SUSHI
CORE
more data dictionaries
Successes?
ERMI never became a standard; it's just out there
Stalled development of standards and products
Vendors abandoning ERM products; impression in the knowledge community that ERM systems are failures (cites titles of various ERM meetings - "failure," "what went wrong," etc.)
Economy means less money to spend on new systems
Preliminary data for gap analysis:
The gap group - 2009
Libraries need help with workflows and best practices
Existing ERM systems available but there are lots of doubts about how helpful they are.
Data exchange is critical - have suffered not being able to pass information between systems.
ERMI data model is still important; data dictionary is the key to functionality and interoperability. Yet there are still questions of whether ERM systems are relevant.
It is important to keep data dictionary so terms are defined and standard
License elements and values need simplification
NISO ERM data standards and best practices review steering committee:
Plan:
Perform gap analysis regarding ERM related data, standards, and best practices
Review data dictionary and mapping elements
Consult with vendors and generate discussion
Deliverables:
Recommend future of ERMI data disctionary
Describe typical challenges libraries face in using currently-available ERM systems and services
Identify gaps in interoperability and best practices
Betsy shows 2 screens of ERM related standards, best practices, and other initiatives
Betsy's question: if there are so many standards and best practices (some conflicting), how is anyone going to improve a system in terms of mapping what publishers do into a system? How do system vendors know what to build into the systems?
Recommendations:
Need:
Modularity, specialized applications
Light-weight, open-ended, flexible standards (Betsy asks, How can you have flexible standards???)
efficient data sharing and transport
Flexible dynamic structures for knitting pieces together where needed
Clear relationships among ERM standards
A NISO ERM Best Practices Framework?
Data Dictionary recommendations?
Discussion points for attendees:
Related title information: eresource title continues/continued by
Definition of common data elements
Granularity of elements
Importance of a data dictionary
Comments