Abstract
The presenters recognized a need for a way to extract and exchange acquisitions data from integrated library systems into electronic resource management systems. They developed a proposal for CORE, cost of resource exchange, a standard to allow for cross platform exchange of relevant information. This session provided background, a general description, and the current state of the proposed CORE standard.
What is CORE? Two of the three authors of this proposed standard took the opportunity to share information about their proposal to facilitate the extraction and exchange of financial and related data from business systems for use by an Electronic Resource Management (ERM) system. The presenters noted that their proposal built upon the recommendations put forward in a white paper published by the Digital Library Federation Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), Phase II group.Footnote 1 They also viewed it as an opportunity for “cooptition”Footnote 2 by working together on a project that would benefit the entire industry.
Why do we need CORE? Neither the integrated library system (ILS) nor the ERM can manage and support all the processes associated with managing electronic resources. Most ERMs do not include acquisitions data nor have a way to access this data in the ILS. ILS acquisitions and serials modules do not track critical information about electronic resources, such as licensing terms and usage statistics. Many libraries are manually compiling cost per use data for journals and databases which are then used as a factor in renewal decisions. The CORE standard would facilitate true cross platform data exchange and reduce the need for duplicate workflows often with manual efforts to input acquisitions data, such as subscription period, price paid, vendor, and fund code into the ERM. Libraries that are also able to use SUSHI (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative) to automatically populate their ERM with usage data would be able to readily perform a cost per use analysis, almost a “Holy Grail” for resource management according to the presenters.
Librarians and vendors would both benefit from adoption of the CORE standard. Libraries could reduce the number of labor intensive processes, especially maintaining multiple or duplicate data entry points. Libraries would be able to make purchase decisions based on which ERM best met their needs and required functionality instead of being tied to an existing vendor relationship. They would also be better positioned to demonstrate good stewardship of acquisitions dollars. Vendors could focus more on product quality and service to customers. Machine-to-machine transfer of data would be fast, easy, reliable, and accurate. The potential market for sales would change and presumably expand because ERMs would become “system agnostic,” no longer so closely tied to the same vendor's ILS or other product line.
Having established the basic description and benefits of CORE, the presenters described in more detail how CORE came about and where it stands today. Its origins began with a partnership between SirsiDynix and Serials Solutions to have SirsiDynix market Serials Solutions's ERM module. At the same time libraries using SirsiDynix's Unicorn system wanted to pull acquisitions data into VERDE, the ERM from ExLibris, where Ted Koppel worked until February 2008. Meanwhile, a DLF ERMI II subcommittee with Norm Medeiros (Haverford College), Adam Chandler (Cornell University), Linda Miller (Library of Congress), and Angela Riggio (UCLA), prepared a white paper to investigate interoperability between an ILS acquisitions module and an ERM. The subcommittee examined their own institutional requirements for populating an ERM with acquisitions data and interviewed ILS and ERM product managers as well as other librarians to identify key elements critical for such a transfer. Ed, Jeff, and Ted recognized that this paper fit in with the projects they were working on so it seemed natural for the three of them to work together. They analyzed the elements suggested in the white paper for those most frequently requested by the subcommittee members' libraries, queried other ILS and ERM vendors about which elements the vendors could supply or would expect, reviewed existing standards for adaptability, and adopted the KISS principle to keep it simple and sweet. They firmly believed that a set of clear, simple, and well-defined data elements increases the likelihood of widespread adoption.
They came up with a list of twenty-four elements within the following categories for the initial CORE standard proposal:
| • | Unique Order ID (serves as match point) | ||||
| • | Acquisitions status and acquisitions status date | ||||
| • | Fiscal year | ||||
| • | Budgeted cost, fund code, and currency | ||||
| • | PO line, PO note | ||||
| • | Invoice amount (cost), currency, date, number, and note | ||||
| • | Subscription start date and end dates and reference number | ||||
| • | Vendor name, ID, contact name, address, e-mail, and phone | ||||
| • | Selector | ||||
Next they put together some simple use cases to help drive both the data elements and the transport mechanism. For example, the ERM sends a request for price information to the ILS using the order ID as a match point. The ILS would respond with the requested data to populate the appropriate fields in the ERM or be displayed to the user. The following example shows how an auto-update function would operate. When a user updates a particular field in the acquisitions module, such as vendor name, this data is automatically sent to the ERM. A batch push of CORE data into the ERM could also be configured. Ed, Jeff, and Ted recognize there is still more work to be done, such as documenting more case studies in order to identify any missing data elements, as well as creating a data dictionary to clarify all the data elements.
Ed, Jeff, and Ted reviewed the current standards landscape and realized that standards such as ONIX for Serials did not really address the need identified in the ERMI white paper or from their own investigations. They wrote a description of CORE and submitted it to NISO (National Information Standards Organization) for consideration and possible action. NISO agreed that CORE could not be folded into any existing standards and assigned its Business Information Topic Committee to review the proposal. This NISO committee voted to accept CORE as a new work project and set up a standards committee to take the proposal to the next level. NISO voted to approve standards work on CORE and will now move forward to solicit feedback from the ERM community, ILS vendors, and other business partners, such as subscription agents and payment services. The presenters very much encouraged participation and support from the library community, especially to let vendors know that libraries have a real need for the exchange of acquisitions and other information from one system to another. Ed and Jeff also suggested that taking a two-pronged approach might move the process along more quickly by separating the payload (data elements) from the means of delivery.
With the ball now in NISO's court, what are the next steps? NISO will establish a working group to develop and write the draft standard as well as conduct a trial. During the trial period, the working group will analyze problems and tweak the standard to address them. There should be plenty of opportunity for feedback from all interested parties, and in fact, Ed and Jeff very much encouraged participation from the library community. Once a final draft is ready, it will be sent out to NISO members for a vote. If the vote to approve is successful, then the new standard becomes official. The target date for completion of the draft standard is December 1, 2008.
The discussion period included responses to questions posed by the presenters. Do you perceive a need for CORE? Audience feedback indicated a resounding affirmative. There was a question whether CORE could move beyond an ILS/ERM connection. Ed, Jeff, and Ted had originally envisioned an interface with business systems, such as PeopleSoft or university accounting systems. However, the NISO working group will be responsible for whatever direction they feel is best for the standard. Even if the final standard is only a start, Ed, Jeff, and Ted envisioned it to be readily expandable for any number of applications. The audience was encouraged to let vendors know how valuable a service like CORE would be, particularly considering the likelihood of future system migrations. The more interoperability available in the market, the easier it will be to select the modules that will best meet the needs of users. The audience was advised to track the progress of a CORE standard on the NISO website (www.niso.org), or contact Karen Wetzel at NISO or any of the presenters for more information.
CONTRIBUTOR NOTES
Ed Riding is the Horizon Product Manager at SirsiDynix.
Jeff Aipperspach is the Senior Product Manager of 360 Resource Manager at Serials Solutions.
Ted Koppel, Product Manager at Auto-Graphics, assisted in the preparation of this presentation but was unable to present.
Susan Davis is the Head of Electronic Resources Acquisitions at the University at Buffalo (SUNY).
Notes
1. Norm Meideros, Linda Miller, Adam Chandler, and Angela Riggio, White Paper on Interoperability between Acquisitions Modules of Integrated Library Systems and Electronic Resource Management Systems. January 2008. http://www.diglib.org/standards/ERMI_Interop_Report_20080108.pdf (accessed July 14, 2008).
2. According to BusinessDictionary.com the definition of cooptition is “Cooperative competition. Practice where competitors work with each other on project-to-project, joint venture, or co-marketing basis.” http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/cooptition.html (accessed July 14, 2008).