1. PECAN Phase 2
Pilot for Ensuring Continuity of Access via Nesli2
Adam Rusbridge
EDINA, University of Edinburgh
Workshops with Libraries
12th March 2012 :: JISC Collections, London
19th March 2012 :: EDINA, Edinburgh

2. EDINA Proposal
• Develop a prototype entitlement registry
• Match up title information with institutional subscriptions and post-cancellation
entitlement
• Key components were to:
• Design and implement a demonstrator Entitlement Registry
• Supporting initial ingest and display of data
• Assess methods to automate data ingest
• Assess methods to maintain accuracy of records over time
• Understand information requirements
• For recording, maintaining, providing access
• UK HE community
• NESLi2 publishers

3. Initial Data Model
• Package (collection) as central component
• Flexible institutional identifiers
• Record institutional relationships (record license transfer info)
• Capture ‘verification statement’
• Capture publisher transfers over time

4. Data Supply
• Taylor and Francis:
• SAGE:

5. Data Sources: Handling dynamic information
• Two related content requirements
• 1. Record of Entitlement
• Messy as an institution can change titles part-way through a deal
(keeping the same cost value)
• Messy as publishers transfer titles, and entitlements, to other
publishers
• 2. Current information about a deal
• Messy as titles move in and out of a deal
• How do we capture this dynamic information?

6. Data Sources: Handling dynamic information
3. Duplicate coverage: is it useful to identify reasons for this?
• Different subscriptions, purchasing departments
• How do we usefully distinguish purchases and purchasing authorities
5. How important is the ‘package’?
• Neither publisher provided us with this, although we did request it
• How to define and maintain information on package/collection?
• Journal A-Z lists are a good source of information
• But don’t seem to be updated regularly?
• Recording publisher transfers
• Source information through the TRANSFER initiative
9. Purchasing authority: understanding account numbers

7. Data Formats
• Spreadsheets are satisfactory for development purposes,
but do not scale
• A-Z title lists are a suitable source for title information
• Effort to ingest every time: standard formats or a central source like the
ISSN Register would assist
• Service- level needs a standard format
• ONIX for Serials: SOH (Serials Online Holdings)
• ONIX for Serials: SPS (Serials Products and Subscriptions)
• KBART..?
• However, need better publisher support before expecting them
to undertake developments.

8. Demo
• http://pecandev.edina.ac.uk:8080
• Jane Librarian / passw0rd
• Bill Books / passw0rd

9. Demo

10. Conclusions so far…
• Publishers manually intervened to generate information
• We need to specify and agree data field & formats
• Negotiate supply of this, with sensible timings
• Standards will be useful
• ONIX family show promise
• Longer-term prospect: negotiation needed for publisher support
• To get publisher buy-in, we need new workflows around
supply of information
• As part of contract, publisher delivers record of entitlement to
registry
• Make this a requirement of future NESLi2 license…?
• Need service level registry first
• Goal is to minimise need for manual intervention

11. How can the prototype be extended?
• Prototype has limited functionality
• Use entitlement registry to assist with the verification process
• Draw in data from other services, e.g. Keepers Registry
• Following slides contain a selection of wire-framed ideas to
highlight possibilities.

12. Wireframes: Verification & External Data

13. Wireframes: Verification Process

14. Wireframes: Verification Summary & Reporting

15. Find out more…
http://edina.ac.uk/projects/pecan2_summary.html
a.rusbridge@ed.ac.uk
@EDINA_eJournals