SUSHI- Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) update: http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi

Adam Chandler presented an overview of what was happening with SUSHI – it’s available at http://www.niso.org/workrooms/sushi/info/SUSHI_ALA_Annual_2008-nisoupdate.ppt.

First he gave some background on SUSHI itself. SUSHI uses the COUNTER schema – it’s a protocol for moving statistics between two systems. Just the exchange – COUNTER actually codifies what’s in the reports. He presented conceptual diagrams of how the information is exchanged.

Then he talked about a survey of content providers and consolidators done in May 2008. Most consolidators plan to have support for SUSHI 1.5 by late 2008 or one in early 2009. Content providers were mostly going to implement in 2009, although some would be early, and some are still deciding.

Adam also called for volunteers for the NISO steering group, especially those with access to data such as those who work for a consortium. He also called for “Sushi Shokunin” – those who are willing to monitor the developers’ listservs to help people get up and running.

Finally, he mentioned that version 3 of the COUNTER Journals and Databases code of practice will require SUSHI support.

Discussion centered around whether there’s pushback from vendors as the reports get more complicated. It isn’t that it’s technically too difficult, but that there are lots of competing requests for limited resources. The schemas are problematic, but the protocol itself is not changing. It’s possible that it’s because there’s a lack of SOAP knowledge – it’s not hard, but it takes time to develop.

After Adam, group business was conducted. A new vice chair was elected. There was a suggestion to create a sandbox (Drupal server? etc) for between the meetings. Many people implementing ERMs are learning the same lessons, so a social space might be useful. There was some interest, and someone from the Electronic Resources & Libraries conference said that there were two groups that wanted something similar from them as well. Also, it was noted that the chairs are always looking for program ideas, so please send them.

CORE-Cost of Resources Exchange: http://www.niso.org/workrooms/core

Ted Koppel presented some background on how CORE developed. A group of people recognized that libraries should be able to send acquisition information from the ILS to the ERM. They started with ExLibris and Sirsi-Dynix, and decided to create a protocol for the sharing of pieces of acquisition information. The payload is the first part, the delivery is the second part. They did a survey of what data should be shared. Around the beginning of the year, they approached NISO, and about 1 month before Annual were given permission to assemble a working group.

The data is a subset of acquisition data elements, just over a dozen to begin with (out of the 50-60 that are typical) – fund number, order number, paid date, etc. This is just what’s in the payload – completely separate from the delivery method, as they want to keep it simple.

So, they’re looking for working group members.

One of the chairs of the ERM IG is doing something similar with III based on these elements, and recommends looking at your data now if you are interested in this, as inconsistencies cause major headaches later.

KBART-Knowledge Base and Related Tools Working Group – http://www.niso.org/workrooms/kbart

Nettie Lagace presented on this UKSG- and NISO-sponsored group that developed out of the UKSG report “Link Resolvers and the Serials Supply Chain.” It aims to create guidelines, educate all of the stakeholders, and act as an information hub. In the process, they’ll create a list of terminology, define the problems, look for solutions, and engage in advocacy. They meet monthly on a conference call, and will wrap up work in a report to UKSG next April.

Someone asked if this will only succeed if publishers buy in. Nettie suggested that part of the group’s mission was advocacy, and that they don’t yet know if they have publisher buy in because the report is not yet published. Also, they’ll need to educate the community, and librarians will need to bring pressure on the publishers.

ONIX News: http://www.editeur.org/

Brian Green presented an update on ONIX-related initiatives. ONIX is a set of metadata formats (for books, serials, etc) that can be for description, transaction, or licensing. ONIX for books is a trade standard for publishers that has recently gained interest from librarians as well. There is an international steering group in 15 countries. Version 3.0 will soon be able to handle digital objects, deal better with multiple item products, but is still in a period of input. Serials Online Holdings (SOH) provides information on e-serials holdings to libraries. There is a release notification, e.g. Finally, ONIX-PL is used for licensing terms. There are US and European pilots ongoing. Version 1.0 should be ready by July, and the ONIX-PL editing tools should be available in summer 2008. There is no ERM implementation yet.

NISO Update: http://www.niso.org

Todd Carpenter gave a short presentation on the different initiatives that NISO is involved with. The License Expression Working Group is working with EDItEUR to map the Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI) data dictionary to ONIX-PL terms. This will split into two areas: one will have responsibility for ONIX-PL and one will look at issues of maintenance of ERMI.

Tim Jewell is conducting a survey on the ERMI – it was composed four years ago, but should someone maintain it, and who? He will conduct 1-on-1 interviews with vendors about whether it can be incorporated into products, and interviews with libraries to see if they use all of the 300+ data elements. This will be fed into a strategic plan, and there should be a report by the fall.

Things to keep an eye out for:

International DOI standard is moving forward. There shouldn’t be too many end-user changes.

NISO released recommended practice of journal articles publication.

NISO held thought leader meetings about digital libraries and digital collections. Should work with publishers to improve data streams.

The book industry study group is looking at ways to encourage community on the investment of time and energy in data streams.

There will be an xISSN demonstration from OCLC at Annual.