1、Brian Green EDItEUR,Licenses and ERMs: Standards for the expression of publisher/library licenses,Background: EDItEUR / ONIX Early work on standards for rights Library requirements DLF ERMI project ONIX for Licensing Terms ONIX-PL format ERMI / ONIX mapping and issues Tools for creating license expr
2、essions What next?,Agenda,International umbrella body for book industry standards development Originally a European project (FEP, EBF, EBLIDA) Now international - members in 20 countries Libraries, booksellers/subscription agents/publishers Develops and maintains innovative standards (openly availab
3、le at no cost): bib/product information (ONIX), EDI, RFID, Rights expression etc. Strong collaboration with national and international standards bodies (formal liaisons with ISO, NISO etc) Manages International ISBN Agency,EDItEUR,What is ONIX?,A family of XML formats for communicating rich metadata
4、 about books, serials and other published media, using common data elements Structured dictionary, code lists, XML Schemas, DTDs and user documentation Developed and maintained by EDItEUR through a growing number of partnerships with other organisations Well-structured on ontological principles Exte
5、nsible, mappable, interoperable,ONIX for Books,The first international trade standard for product information First release in 2000, Release 3 in 2008 Adopted by book trades of Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland France, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, US, UK A trade standa
6、rd, but used by Library of Congress, Deutsche Bibliothek and others for CIP metadata supplied by publishers and enhancing OPACS RDA*/ONIX discussions on high level common framework*Resource Description and Access,ONIX for Serials,An EDItEUR NISO collaboration through a Joint Working Party (JWP) Bein
7、g piloted as a series of messages to support exchanges of metadata between publishers, doc del, A&I services and libraries A growing set of XML “building blocks” that can be combined in different ways to form messages for particular application needs Identified the need to express usage rights,1998:
8、 formed a joint Rights Metadata Working Party with Book Industry Communication (BIC) and NISO Aim was to collaborate with other bodies to help define an international standard for rights metadata elements Participated in EU (interoperability of data in electronic commerce systems) project, 1998 to 2
9、000 Many of the principles behind OLT are derived from ,EDItEUR and rights metadata,Licensing terms - the problem,Growth of digital collections in libraries Need to automate electronic resource management Variation in licence terms What are library users permitted to do? Under what conditions? Which
10、 classes of users are permitted to do what? What exceptions are there to what they are permitted to do? Licenses are, typically, negotiated then filed away How can libraries and users know what has been negotiated and avoid saying “no” just in case?,What libraries say they want,Expression of rights
11、rights expressed in machine readable form Dissemination of rights ensuring that whenever a resource is described its rights are also described Exposure of rights user sees the rights information associated with a resource Intrallect DRM report for JISC,in other words,Machine-readable license terms l
12、oadable into ERM systems A standard mechanism for the communication of unambiguous licensing information within the library supply chain Compatible with other metadata standards i.e. XML - based using standard identifiers Flexible, extensible, interoperable an ONIX for Licensing Terms,DLF ERMI proje
13、ct (2003+),US Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Management Initiative Problem Definition/Road Map Functional Requirements Workflow Diagram Entity Relationship Diagram for Electronic Resource Management Data Element Dictionary (including licensing terms) Electronic Resources Management S
14、ystem Data Structure XML Investigation,ERMI terms of use elements,Authorized User Definition Local Authorized User Definition Indicator Fair Use Clause Indicator All Rights Reserved Indicator Database Protection Override Clause Indicator Citation Requirement Detail Digitally Copy* Print Copy* Schola
15、rly Sharing* Distance Education* Interlibrary Loan Print or Fax* Interlibrary Loan Secure Electronic Transmission* Interlibrary Loan Electronic*,Course Reserve Print* Course Reserve Electronic/ Cached Copy* Electronic Link* Course Pack Print* Course Pack Electronic* Remote Access* Concurrent Users P
16、ooled Concurrent Users Other User Restriction Note Other Use Restriction Note,ERMI Permission Encodings,Permitted (explicit) Prohibited (explicit) Permitted (interpreted) Prohibited (interpreted) Silent (no interpretation) Not applicable,EDItEUR review of ERMI use terms,EDItEUR commissioned review o
17、f ERMI from Rightscom, which concluded: The ERMI terms of use and permissions encodings are a valuable starting point for the development of such a communication standard but requires further development To meet requirements of precision, extensibility and interoperability, licensing terms require f
18、urther development and organising into an (onto)logical structure and proposed Rights model premise based on : all licences are groups of events,Terms of a Licence as a group of Events,Licensing Event,This structure allows for whatever level of flexibility or granularity may be required now or in th
19、e future.,The need for precision,e.g. Inter Library Loan (ILL) Everyone knows what ILL means! ILL clause from one model contract :,“The Licensee may supply to an Authorised User of another library within the same country as the Licensee a copy of an individual document being part of the Licensed Mat
20、erials by post, fax or electronic transmission via the Internet or otherwise, for the purposes of research or private study and not for Commercial Use.”,i.e. lots of variables and they do vary!,but allowing for ambiguity,Format needs to be able to cope with high level definitions (e.g. ILL) if thats
21、 what the licence uses i.e. deliberate ambiguity But needs to be able to express clauses at a more granular level if the licence does,ONIX for Licensing Terms (OLT),Takes into account the requirements of all stakeholders in the chain Provides for the full complexity of rights management requirements
22、 Based on a logical events-based “rights model” Fully extensible Able to support any future business model Able to support multimedia rights management Designed to support interoperability Can be mapped to other well structured metadata formats,Not a “Rights Expression Language”,XrML / ODRL are desi
23、gned to control rights “enforcement technologies” (i.e. technical protection) They dont have the flexibility we need dont express exceptions well designed to have a one-to-one relationship to a resource Libraries and publishers prefer to rely on compliance to licences Our focus is entirely on the co
24、mmunication of usage terms (rights metadata), not technical protection Library policies can overide message (e.g. fair use),The publication of ERMIs work in 2004 underlined the need for a standard for expressing and communicating license terms in the library sector With funding from JISC (Joint Info
25、rmation Systems Committee of the UK Higher Education Funding Council) and the Publishers Licensing Society, EDItEUR commissioned Rightscom to undertake a proof of concept project with the ONIX team A workshop in April 2005, with publishers, librarians, agents, system vendors and ERMI representatives
26、 confirmed the potential for this work,OLT proof of concept,At this point (2005) OLT was generally identified with publishers licenses to academic libraries However, EDItEUR always conceived OLT as something that should be applicable to many types of licensor and licensee, many types of licensed con
27、tent, and many types of usage There is, therefore, NO single ONIX Licensing Terms format OLT is a family of license-related formats with a shared underlying framework,OLT and its potential applications,A data model for describing licensing events All terms defined in a structured OLT Dictionary that
28、 will grow as new application needs are identified Individual formats specified with appropriate levels of specialization as separate XML schemas and documentation,The OLT framework,ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL) Message formats for the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organ
29、izations (IFRRO): ONIX for Repertoire, and ONIX for Distributions The Automated Content Access Protocol (ACAP) project is working with EDItEUR and OLT terms to express permissions for use of web content in a form that can be interpreted by search engine crawlers see www.the-acap.org Others to come,O
30、LT applications,Licensor to licensee, where the license is based on a licensors model, to be used (among other things?) to feed an ERMS Licensee to licensor, where the license is based on a licensees model Negotiation? ERMS to ERMS (eg within a consortium) but this will be a different level of imple
31、mentation, carrying an expression of the ERMI encoding rather than the whole license,ONIX-PL usage scenarios,Structure of ONIX-PL format,Structured XML statements of all terms and conditions actionable in licensees system Non-actionable terms and conditions are included as controlled “term type” ref
32、erences to the license text This will facilitate a knowledge base of consistently classified non-actionable terms and conditions Changing collection of licensed materials may be specified by reference to a separate source Ability to express complete license Potential license management tool,Helps li
33、braries comply with licensing terms Precise clarification of usage conditions, prohibitions and conditions Reinforces trust-based relationships between publishers and their library customers Facilitates publishers management of licences Libraries arent the only ones with electronic resource manageme
34、nt problems Enables a knowledge base of licence agreements Major academic libraries, consortia, HE funding bodies likely to demand machine readable licences in due course,Publishers like it too,ERMI & ONIX: the differences,ERMI use terms & permissions encoding designed with a view to libraries mappi
35、ng usage terms from licenses into ERM system, making their own interpretations ONIX-PL designed to deliver machine readable licenses directly into ERMs, but not “hard-wired” libraries can still apply their own policies and interpretations .best illustrated with help from Nathan Robertsons great grap
36、hics,License ManagementThe Old Way,What staff can and cant do,What users can and cant do,License ManagementThe New Way,ERM System,!?!,?,Oh, good! I can use this for ILL!,Im not supposed to e-mail it to my friends? (whatever, Ill do it anyway.),XML License Expression Standard,ERM System,Confirm inter
37、pretations,?,?,?,ONIXPL,ERMI & ONIX working together,ONIX-PL encoding of ERMI use terms and permissions encoding for communication to and between current ERMI-based ERM systems Mapping of ONIX-PL to ERMI (where possible (many ONIX usage terms cannot currently be expressed in ERMI) Agreement to exten
38、d ERMI use terms (mechanism to be decided) Collaboration in joint License Expression Working Group,NISO / DLF / EDItEUR / PLS License Expression Working Group,A wide cross-section of stakeholders briefed “to develop a single standard for the exchange of license information between publishers, interm
39、ediaries and libraries.” Co-chaired by Alicia Wise (PLS) and Nathan Robertson (ERMI) Small expert sub-group and wider reference group of 60+ stakeholders,Library ERM systems will manage message format for their libraries Smaller publishers cannot be expected to draft XML versions of their licences J
40、ISC funded specification of drafting tool to enable publishers to produce ONIX-PL expressions of their licences, with input from publishers: Wiley, CUP, OUP, RSM, RSC, Rockefeller UP JISC and PLS (Publishers Licensing Society) co-funded development of licence drafting tools (open source freely avail
41、able to all) Also useful for libraries,ONIX-PL Editing Tools (OPLE),Some OPLE features,No familiarity with XML required The system will support two “views” of a license expression: “Form” view, used for editing “Page” view, used for comparing a complete license with a the paper-based original “Page
42、view” will also be useful for libraries wishing to check publishers ONIX-PL expression of their licenses,JISC: the first OPLE user,JISC Collections (a limited company formed by the UK Higher Education Funding Council to manage the acquisition of licensed electronic resources for the academic communi
43、ty) has identified a need to express all its existing licenses with publishers (around 80) in electronic form for use in ERMS With support from EDItEUR , JISC is currently using ONIX-PL and the OPLE editing tools to do this JISC insist on mapping in detail to ensure that all the negotiated usage rig
44、hts are expressed,but JISC have a problem,JISC are in the market for an ERM system but havent found one that can accept full ONIX-PL Mapping their ONIX-PL expressions to ERMI terms is fine for the more common terms, nearly all of which will in any case be permitted, but excludes many of the more con
45、troversial terms that they have negotiated (e.g. Deposit a digital copy of a resource in a digital repository) Extension of the ERMI terms, and mechanisms for their ongoing maintenance, will help, but they have a “plan B”,RELI (Registry of Electronic Licences),The JISC Registry of Electronic Licence
46、s (RELI) project aims to establish the user requirements for a Licence Registry able to integrate with the JISC Information Environment. It also aims to design, build, deploy and test a pilot based on the requirements. The Registry will enable key elements of licences to be made available so that a
47、user can be provided with licence information at the point of use without additional human intervention. The project began in April 2007 and will run for 2 years.,What do libraries really want?,JISC and UK libraries that we work with say that libraries want to receive ready-mapped machine readable l
48、icenses into their systems, expressing all the usage rights that they have negotiated ERM vendors seem to believe that US libraries will wish to map their own licenses or exchange encoded licenses mainly from other libraries/consortia (a trust issue?) Workshop session being planned to discuss this a
49、t ALA Midwinter, but lets start the debate now.,EDItEUR for ONIX for Licensing Terms www.editeur.orgDLF ERMI www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htmNISO License Expression Working Group www.niso.org/committees/License_Expression/LicenseEx_comm.htmlThe ACAP project www.the-acap.orgBrian Green brianbic.org.uk,
