1、 NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain A Recommended Practice of the National Information Standards Organization Prepared by the Institutional Identifiers Working Group Section 1: Approved March 26, 2013 NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional
2、Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain About NISO Recommended Practices A NISO Recommended Practice is a recommended “best practice” or “guideline” for methods, materials, or practices in order to give guidance to the user. Such documents usually represent a leadin
3、g edge, exceptional model, or proven industry practice. All elements of Recommended Practices are discretionary and may be used as stated or modified by the user to meet specific needs. This recommended practice may be revised or withdrawn at any time. For current information on the status of this p
4、ublication contact the NISO office or visit the NISO website (www.niso.org). Published by National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21211 www.niso.org Copyright 2013 by the National Information Standards Organization All rights reserved under
5、International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. For noncommercial purposes only, this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission in writing from the publisher, provided it is reproduced accurately, the source of the material is identified,
6、 and the NISO copyright status is acknowledged. All inquiries regarding translations into other languages or commercial reproduction or distribution should be addressed to: 3600 Clipper Mill Road, Suite 302, Baltimore, MD 21211. ISBN: 978-1-937522-11-7 NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: I
7、dentifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain iii Contents Section 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Community Needs Assessment . 1 1.3 Requirements for the I2 . 2 1.3.1 Requirements for the Identifier Standard 3 1.3.2 Use Case Scenario Development . 4 1.3.3 Requirements for the Core
8、 Metadata Set . 4 1.3.4 I2 Operational Environment Requirements 8 1.4 Candidate I2 Identifier Standards . 8 1.5 Collaboration with ISNI International Authority . 9 1.5.1 Background on the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) 9 1.5.2 Evaluation of ISNI for Institution Identification . 10 1.5
9、.3 Discussions with ISNI-IA . 11 Section 2: Institutional Identification Recommended Practices 12 2.1 Purpose of Institutional Identification . 12 2.2 Scope 12 2.3 Terms and Definitions . 12 2.4 Requirements for the Operational Environment 13 2.5 ISNI Metadata Applied to Institutional Identification
10、 . 14 Appendix A: Use Case Scenarios . 15 Appendix B: NISO I2 Metadata Element Set Mapped to ISNI Metadata Elements 23 Bibliography 24 NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain iv Foreword About this Recommended Practice The National Info
11、rmation Standards Organization (NISO) established the Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group in January 2008 to develop a robust, scalable, and interoperable standard for identifying a core entity in any information management or sharing transactionthe institution. The I2 Working Group did exte
12、nsive community needs assessment with the publishing, library, and repository use sectors. Concurrent with this Working Groups efforts, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) was developing a standard for a “name” identifier for public parties “involved throughout the media content
13、 industries in the creation, production, management, and content distribution chains.” After reviewing the drafts of that standard (later published in March 2012 as ISO 27729, Information and documentation International standard name identifier (ISNI), the I2 Working Group initiated discussions with
14、 the ISNI International Agency (ISNI-IA) about the potential of using the ISNI standard and the ISNI-IAs infrastructure for institutional identification, rather than publishing a separate standard for institutions. Those discussions resulted in an agreement to use ISNI for institution identification
15、. This document provides background on that collaboration decision and describes the recommended practices for using the ISNI for institutional identification. NISO Topic Committee Members The Business Information Topic Committee had the following members at the time it approved this Recommended Pra
16、ctice: Ivy Anderson California Digital Library Timothy Strawn California Polytechnic State University Denise Davis, Co-Chair Sacramento Public Library Karla Strieb, Co-Chair Ohio State University Libraries Herbert Gruttemeier Institut de lInformation Scientifique et Technique (INIST) Gary Van Overbo
17、rg Scholarly iQ William Hoffman Swets Information Services Charles Watkinson Purdue University Libraries Norm Medeiros Haverford College Michael Zeoli YBP Library Services Christine Stamison Swets Information Services NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Inf
18、ormation Supply Chain v NISO I2 Working Group Members The following individuals served on the NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group, which developed and approved this Recommended Practice: Grace Agnew (co-chair) Rutgers University Libraries Oliver Pesch (co-chair) EBSCO Information Servic
19、es Jody DeRidder University of Alabama Janifer Gatenby OCLC Michael Giarlo Penn State University Helen Henderson Information Power Ltd. Cindy Hepfer SUNY at Buffalo Lisa A. Macklin Emory University Library Mark Needleman Florida Center for Library Automation Heather Weltin University of Wisconsin, M
20、adison Acknowledgements The I2 Working Group wishes to acknowledge Tina Feick, who served as co-chair of the NISO I2 Working Group in 2008, as well as those who contributed individual comments to the I2 Midterm review: Theo Andrew (EDINA National Data Centre), Juan Gorraiz (University of Vienna), Di
21、ane Hillmann (Metadata Management Associates), John A. Kunze (University of California), Ralph LeVan (OCLC), Ann McLuckie (SABINET), Jeff Sedlik (PLUS Coalition), and Allison Durocher Tarazona (American Academy of Pediatrics). Trademarks, Services Marks Wherever used in this standard, all terms that
22、 are trademarks or service marks are and remain the property of their respective owners. NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain vi NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain
23、1 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Background The Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group was established at the request of the information supplier community, which lacked a robust, global identifier strategy for the organizations with which they did business. The Journal Supply Chain Efficiency Imp
24、rovement Pilot (JSCEIP), conducted from 2006 through 2007, demonstrated the improved efficiencies of unambiguous identification of organizational entities in journal supply workflows. The project also found that implementation of an institutional identifier would require a commitment by all parties
25、in the supply chain to use such an identifierand that there were many more players involved than originally thought. Additional issues were raised related to the metadata that should be collected for the identifier and how the data would be maintained. Since NISO has traditionally played a role in t
26、he promulgation of identifiers commonly used within the library and publishing communities, both nationally and internationally, members of the JSCEIP brought a proposal to NISO to develop an institutional identifier standard that could support a wide range of known and unknown digital information n
27、eeds throughout the library and publishing environment. The proposal was approved by NISOs Business Information Committee and the Voting Members in January 2008 and a NISO Institutional Identifiers (I2) Working Group was formed with the following charges: 1. Develop scenarios to represent the most c
28、ompelling use cases for institutional identifiers that will engage all relevant stakeholders and identify their institutional identifier needs. 2. Develop a globally unique identifier string that is usable in the web environment, together with sufficient metadata to uniquely identify and relate the
29、institution to its identifier. 3. Identify a strategy for the implementation of the institutional identifier, including identifying the hosting and technical needs, the legacy uses of institutional identifiers in the digital information space, and the identification of complementary initiatives that
30、 could be informed by, or interoperable with, the NISO I2 identifier standard. 1.2 Community Needs Assessment The I2 investigation process was characterized by multi-faceted and broad-based needs assessment strategies intended to engage the digital information community in describing: 1. Issues with
31、 current (“legacy”) identifiers 2. Requirements for an institutional identifier 3. Barriers to the adoption of an institutional identifier 4. Emerging or complementary identifier standards that should be considered in place of developing a new identifier standard and implementation strategy NISO RP-
32、17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain 2 The I2 Working Group established subgroups to investigate these issues within three particular scenario areas: Electronic Resource Supply Chain Institutional Repositories Library Resource Management (A
33、fourth proposed scenario area of e-learning was determined to be a sub-area within each of the broad scenario areas, and was thus eliminated as a separate sub-group.) Over 300 constituents were engaged through surveys and consultations to identify requirements. Respondents to surveys for institution
34、al repositories and library resource management showed remarkable unanimity. Large percentages agreed that an institutional identifier was important, and a majority were likely, or somewhat likely, to request and use a globally unique institutional identifier. Most respondents were currently using o
35、ne or more identifiers. Library resource management survey participants were primarily using workflow-specific identifiers, such as MARC codes for cataloging within OCLC or participating in ILL transactions. Respondents to the institutional repository survey generally assigned an identifier to thems
36、elves or their organizational participants and this was most frequently a CNRI Handle. Respondents to both surveys were less likely to update a registry after initial participation, so the need for fairly durable metadata, as well as the need to qualify some metadata by period of validity, is import
37、ant. Survey respondents identified complementary identifier initiatives that should be considered, particularly ISIL (International Standard Identifier for Libraries and Related Organizations, ISO 15511), a unique identifier specific to libraries, and ISNI (International Standard Name Identifier, IS
38、O 27729), which identifies public entities, both personal and corporate, across the entire media creation chain, from creation to final distribution. (Both the ISIL and ISNI standards were studied. ISIL was too narrow in scope to consider for an I2 recommendation, but ISNI was deemed to have potenti
39、al for meeting the requirements of the institutional identifier and was added to the I2 agenda for further investigation.) Respondents in both surveys also identified the need for a data element that classified the institution by business sector, so this element was added to the draft metadata speci
40、fication. Most elements in the draft metadata specification were deemed very or somewhat important with the exception of language of name, which was made optional as an attribute. 1.3 Requirements for the I2 In the second phase of the NISO I2 initiative, working group members participated in four ac
41、tivities: identifier requirements, use case scenario development, metadata schema development, and operational environment requirements, each of which is discussed further in this section. The work of the I2 Working Group was codified in a midterm review and distributed for comments in many venues,
42、including the 2010 ALA Annual conference. The broad digital information community was invited to participate via survey and individual comments. The largest percentage of respondents was from the library community, although some members of the digital licensing community responded via personal comme
43、nts. The draft metadata schema and the identifier structure and environment choices were ratified by a majority of respondents, including the decentralized registry NISO RP-17-2013 Institutional Identification: Identifying Organizations in the Information Supply Chain 3 approach and the reuse of ass
44、igned identifiers in workflow specific registries, rather than a registry that tries to accommodate all current and potential digital information workflows. 1.3.1 Requirements for the Identifier Standard The features listed in Table 1 were specified for the I2 and validated through surveys and publi
45、c comments. All were rated as “very important” or “somewhat important,” with only the identifier opacity having an equally high score for “dont know/no opinion.” Table 1: Required attributes of an institutional identifier I2 Feature / Attribute Description Identify organizations The I2 will unambigu
46、ously identify institutions and organizations that operate within and around the information supply chain. I2 will be used for identifying institutions and units of institutions. Be opaque The I2 should be an opaque string of characters. Organizations change in structure and are merged and split. Id
47、entifiers for a given organization unit need to be persistent; therefore, the identifier should not contain semantics about the institution (e.g., the domain name of the organization). Support the creation of a core metadata set that describes an institution sufficient for unambiguous identification
48、 With an opaque identifier, additional metadata (in a registry) is needed to describe the institution being identified to facilitate its unambiguous identification. The core metadata will disambiguate the institution from related institutions (e.g., parent and sibling, former institution); will iden
49、tify the institution by variant names or identifiers, such as the MARC institution code; and will provide category, location, and contact information suitable for obtaining further information about the institution. Support registration of institutions in a decentralized manner The identifier and the structure/environment within which it operates must be able to support multiple business scenarios operating independently and not relying on the registration of an institution by another entity before the identifier can be used. Address community-specific registry nee
