Transcript APE 2007 - International Federation of Library

Licenses and ERMs:
Standards for the expression
of publisher/library licenses
Brian Green
EDItEUR
Agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 expressions
What next?
EDItEUR
• 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
available 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
What is ONIX?
• A family of XML formats for communicating rich metadata
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
• Extensible, 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 standard, 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)
• Being 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
EDItEUR and rights metadata
• 1998: 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 <indecs> (‘interoperability of
data in electronic commerce systems’) project,
1998 to 2000
• Many of the principles behind OLT are derived from
<indecs>
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 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
• 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 loadable 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 project (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 System 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*
Scholarly 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
Pooled 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 of 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 further
development and organising into an (onto)logical structure
• ..and proposed
• Rights model premise based on <indecs>: all licences are
groups of events
•Terms of a Licence as a group of Events
•Licensing
•Event
•Permits (MAY)
•Prohibits (MUST NOT)
•UseEvent
•Has
•Exception
•Requires (MUST)
•UseEvent
•Has
•Precondition
•Payment
•Reporting
•Event
•etc
•This structure allows for whatever level of flexibility or
granularity may be required now or in the 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 Materials 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 that’s 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
• 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 designed to control rights
“enforcement technologies” (i.e. technical protection)
• They don’t have the flexibility we need
• don’t 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 communication of usage
terms (rights metadata), not technical protection
• Library policies can overide message (e.g. fair use)
OLT ‘proof of concept’
• The publication of ERMI’s work in 2004 underlined
the need for a standard for expressing and
communicating license terms in the library sector
• With funding from JISC (Joint Information 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 confirmed the potential for this work
OLT and its potential applications
• 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
content, 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
The OLT framework
• A data model for describing licensing ‘events’
• All terms defined in a structured OLT Dictionary that
will grow as new application needs are identified
• Individual formats specified – with appropriate
levels of specialization – as separate XML schemas
and documentation
OLT applications
• ONIX for Publications Licenses (ONIX-PL)
• Message formats for the International Federation of
Reproduction Rights Organizations (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
ONIX-PL usage scenarios
• Licensor to licensee, where the license is based on
a licensor’s model, to be used (among other
things?) to feed an ERMS
• Licensee to licensor, where the license is based on
a licensee’s model
• Negotiation?
• ERMS to ERMS (eg within a consortium) – but this
will be a different level of implementation, carrying
an expression of the ERMI encoding rather than the
‘whole’ license
Structure of ONIX-PL format
• Structured XML statements of all terms and conditions
actionable in licensee’s system
• Non-actionable terms and conditions are included as
controlled “term type” references 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
Publishers like it too
• Helps libraries 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 aren’t the only ones with electronic
resource management problems
• Enables a knowledge base of licence agreements
• Major academic libraries, consortia, HE funding
bodies likely to demand machine readable licences
in due course
ERMI & ONIX: the differences
• ERMI use terms & permissions encoding designed
with a view to libraries mapping 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 Robertson’s
great graphics
License Management—The Old Way
What staff can
and can’t do
•What users
can and can’t
do
License Management—The New Way
•?
•!!?
!
Oh, good! I
can use this
for ILL!
ERM
System
I’m not supposed to email it to my friends?
(whatever, I’ll do it anyway...)
XML License
Expression Standard
•?
•?
•?
ONIX-PL
Encoding
ONIX
PL
ERM
System
Confirm
interpretations
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 extend 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, intermediaries and
libraries.”
• Co-chaired by Alicia Wise (PLS) and Nathan
Robertson (ERMI)
• Small expert sub-group and wider reference group of
60+ stakeholders
ONIX-PL Editing Tools (OPLE)
• Library ERM systems will manage message format
for their libraries
• Smaller publishers cannot be expected to draft XML
versions of their licences
• JISC 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) cofunded development of licence drafting tools (open
source – freely available to all)
• Also useful for libraries
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 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 community) 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 rights are expressed
…but JISC have a problem
• JISC are in the market for an ERM system but
haven’t 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 controversial 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 Licences (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 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 licenses 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 at
ALA Midwinter, but let’s start the debate now.
EDItEUR for ONIX for Licensing Terms
www.editeur.org
DLF ERMI
www.diglib.org/standards/dlf-erm02.htm
NISO License Expression Working Group
www.niso.org/committees/License_Expression/LicenseEx_comm.html
The ACAP project
www.the-acap.org
Brian Green
[email protected]