Adam Chandler, Information Technology Librarian in Cornell University Library's Central Technical Services, will speak on his work with the Digital Library Federation's Electronic Resource Management (ERM) Initiative. The Initiative's work provided the framework for Innovative Interfaces' new ERM product, which was recently purchased by Cornell University Library.

Adam has worked as Information Technology Librarian in CUL's Central Technical Services since August 2000. Prior to coming to Cornell, he worked in a number of libraries and research centers in Louisiana, including the USGS National Wetlands Research Center and Tulane University. He earned his MLIS in1994 at Louisiana State University.

Adam discussed the background of the DLF E-Resource Management Initiative (ERMI); DLF ERMI deliverables; the results of the ERMI XML and license information investigation; outstanding ERM issues; vendor/library ERM initiatives; and Cornell's implementation of Innovative Interfaces' ERM product.

When setting out on the project in October 2002, the DLF ERMI group established the following goals: describe architectures needed to manage large collections of licensed e-resources; establish lists of elements and definitions; write and publish XML Schemas/DTDs; and promote best practices and standards for data interchange. In addition, the group established the following deliverables: problem definition/road map; functional specifications; workflow diagram; entity relationship diagram; data elements and definitions; and XML investigation.

The group identified what functions an ERM system would serve. They envisioned that "Libraries could use it to support a discussion of the most important features they might wish to purchase or incorporate into a locally-developed electronic resource management system, or use the specifications as an early draft vendor RFP for such a system."

On May 10, 2002 NISO and the Digital Library Federation co-sponsored a half-day pre-standardization workshop to examine standards needed to facilitate the management of electronic resources. After that meeting, the organizers agreed that it would be helpful to draft an entity relationship diagram of a model ERM system. A revision of this ERD "was expected to help clarify discussions during the Initiative, and assist future system designers." The group also drew up a "standardized list of entities and data elements [that] was projected to save developers substantial time, and could prove particularly helpful to the development of data standards. Draft lists of data elements were discussed at the DLF/NISO workshop, and it was intended that the final, single list would be keyed to, and organized to reflect, the ERD.The final list contained more than three hundred elements.

The ERMI team focused on developing a schema for licenses because, although it had considered developing a schema for the entire data dictionary, there was significant overlap with existing and emerging schemas and limited functionality. It chose to focus on licensing because it is an area of considerable concern and current interest and while there has been significant commercial activity in defining and schematizing licenses, there has been limited library activity in this area.

There are a number of uses for license data exchange, including the ability to have licensing elements actionable in an ERM system, convey appropriate license restrictions, show or hide resources depending on availability to certain groups, prompt staff for action, exchange data with consortial partners, and license feeds from vendors.

There are a number of existing license/rights efforts, including ONIX for Serials, <indecs>, METS, ORDL, and XrML. ONIX for Serials developers plan to look at rights issues later in the development of the standard. Although the developers of <indecs> describe it as being based on a "metadata framework," it wasn't sufficiently precise for the ERMI developers. METS has developed a draft "simple rights schema" while more comprehensive Rights Expression Languages (RELs) (XrML, ODRL) are being developed and debated.

There are a number of benefits of using the XML Container Model with a REL. It uses an existing rights expression language, avoids creation of library-specific metadata standard, helps build momentum for open ODRL, and helps bridge human license reading into actionable computing values.

Although there are many similarities between an ERMI license and an ODRL rights expression, they are not the same. ODRL is extensible and non-prescriptive and requires explicit permission assertions. ERMI licensing needs to be able to work with generic and specific rights statements. ERMI recognizes that there are a number of possible values for permission statements: permitted (explicit); permitted (interpreted); prohibited (explicit); prohibited (interpreted); silent (uninterpreted); and not applicable. There are a number of problems with assuming these values for permission statements--the inability to distinguish prohibitions from silence leads to loss of much useful data; assuming that "silence" on a permission means that it is denied results in extra work to identify and explicitly state all assumed permissions; the "assumed permissions" extensions don't mesh with the ODRL processing model; extensions increase demands on validation; and there ERMI usage may be incorrectly used to limit users' activities.

The ERMI team compared the Creative Commons license and the RDF and learned several things. It found that the Creative Commons use case was very different from its ERM context. While the team was able to show how it is possible to extend CC RDF to include its elements, it do not see how it is possible to actually validate the values in an ERM XML document using our extended CC RDF. The team concluded that very little could be gained from using the ODRL, but RDF as a technology may still be useful.

The team found that the benefits of using XML as data exchange container are well established, but ODRL, MPEG 21/5 and Creative Commons RDF are all problematic within this context. Therefore, the team concluded that the focus in the near term should be placed on developing use specific XML application profiles that draw on ERMI elements and other namespaces (e.g., Dublin Core). An application profile may draw on one or more existing namespaces, introduce no new data elements, specify permitted schemes and values, and refine standard definitions.

There are a number of outstanding issues surrounding ERMI. Since the focus of the work of the Initiative has so far been on the needs of individual libraries, it currently does not support consortium functionality. Usage data made available through "Project Counter" needs to be included; Jeff Shim of Florida State University is writing a white paper about this issue. There is currently no way in ERMI to describe serials and their holdings; a NISO/EDItEUR Joint Working Party for the Exchange of Serials Subscription Information is currently working on this information. The development of a single global e-resource identification system or registry for packages, providers, and interfaces could make it possible to exchange certain kinds of information far more reliably and precisely than at present. The ERMI system also is currently unable to express data standards and license term expression. Lastly, the ERMI team needs to assure that the standard is interoperable with other standards; "VIEWS" (Vendor Initiative for Enabling Web Services) may address this.

The DLF ERMI Steering Group will meet at the 2004 DLF Fall Forum in late October to discuss the possibility of forming joint LITA and ALCTS interest groups, renewal of the "standards discussion" process, the possibility of a (or multiple) standard(s), which agency will maintain the standard, the development of a "resource record" exchange testbed, and how vendors are progressing in their development of ERM systems.

Library management system vendors are in various stages of exploring ERM.

1. Innovative Interfaces developed its ERM module in compliance with the "DLF's emerging standard for describing electronic resources" and since announcing the module in 2003 has sold sixty to III customers and four or five stand alone implementations.
2. ExLibris plans to release its "Verde" product by the end of 2004; Verde addresses the requirements of DLF ERMI and extends them, particularly in its approach to library consortia and its provision of cost-analysis tools.
3. At ALA, Endeavor announced its "Meridian" product, whose "functionality is guided by the requirements outlined by the Digital Library Federation's Electronic Resource Management Initiative and interacts with integrated library systems, like Endeavor's Voyager, for MARC and acquisitions data."
4. Dynix has written an ERM White Paper and plans to develop the concept further.
5. SIRSI prototyped its system at ALA.
6. VTLS has announced its "Verify" product and accompanying rapid development plan.
7. Serials Solutions is planning an ERM product.

There are a number of libraries and consortia there are developing their own ERM systems:

1. There is a possibility that the Colorado Alliance's "Gold Rush" product will have enhanced ERM support by late 2004.
2. Johns Hopkins' HERMES product is open source, but may or may not be maintained and developed
3. UCLA has developed an ERM system called "Erdb," and the UC System is evaluating alternatives, including possible Erdb expansion, III's ERM, and Ex Libris' Verde.

In early 2004, Karen Calhoun used the DLF ERMI Functional Specifications to lead an analysis of what CUL needed in an electronic resource management product. These discussions led to Cornell's signing in the summer of 2004 of a contract with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. to purchase its standalone ERM software product. The ERM has since been installed at Cornell and the Cornell ERM Task Force (Adam Chandler, Surinder Ghangas, Bill Kara, Jesse Koennecke, Maureen Morris, and Scott Wicks) attended ERM training at Innovative's headquarters. Before ERM is used to manage Find e-Journals, the Task Force will: resolve migration details related to bibliographic and coverage data; retool CUL e-resource workflow will be retooled; customize the ERM public interface; and input resources and license data.