This presentation was provided by Nettie Lagace of NISO during ALA 2016 for the College and Research Libraries Interest Group, ALCTS CRS.

1. NISO Access and License
Indicators
Nettie Lagace, NISO - @abugseye
ALCTS CRS
College and Research Libraries Interest Group
ALA Annual, Orlando, June 26, 2016

3. Why is This Necessary?
Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids
=
Lots of OA papers with different associated rights
and responsibilities =
Confusion concerning who can do what when

4. Audience Segments
• Readers
• Authors
• Publishers
• Funders
• Search engines/discovery services
• Academic Libraries

5. Working Group’s Objectives
1. A specified format for bibliographic metadata and
possibly, a set of visual signals, describing the
readership rights associated with a single scholarly
work
2. Recommended mechanisms for publishing and
distributing this metadata
3. A report on the feasibility of including clear
information on downstream re-use rights within the
current project and, if judged feasible, inclusion of
these elements in outputs 1 and 2
4. A report stating how the adoption of these outputs
would answer (or not) specific use cases to be
developed by the Working Group

6. Working Group Membership
Co-chairs:
• Cameron Neylon, PLoS
• Ed Pentz, CrossRef
• Greg Tananbaum, Consultant
(SPARC)
Members:
• Tim Devenport, EDItEUR
• Gregg Gordon, Social Science
Research Network (SSRN)
• Julie Hardesty, Indiana
University Library
• Paul Keller, Europeana
Licensing Framework
• Cecy Marden, The
Wellcome Library
• Jack Ochs, American
Chemical Society
• Heather Reid, Copyright
Clearance Center
• Jill Russell, University of
Birmingham
• Chris Shillum, Elsevier
• Ben Showers, JISC
• Eefke Smit, STM
Association
• Christine Stohn, Ex Libris
• Timothy Vollmer, Creative
Commons

7. “open access” politically fraught
• Won’t use this label
Factual information:
– Is a specified work free to read – can it be
accessed by anyone who has access to the Web?
– What re-use rights are granted to this reader?
• Minimal set of metadata needed
• Decided not to create/recommend a logo

8. <free_to_read> Tag
• Indicates content can be read or viewed by
any user without payment or authentication
• Simple attribute of “yes” or “no”
• Optional start and end dates to accommodate
embargoes, special offers, etc.
<free_to_read="no" start_date="2014-02-3”
end_date=”2015-02-03"/>
<free_to_read="yes" start_date="2015-02-3”/>

9. • Content of this tag would include a stable identifier
expressed as an HTTP URI
• URI would point to license terms that are human and/or
machine readable
• Multiple URIs can be listed if article exists under specific
license for certain period of time and then changes
<license_ref start_date="2014-02-
03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/license_v1.html</li
cense_ref>
<license_ref start_date="2015-02-
03">http://www.psychoceramics.org/open_license.html</
license_ref>
<license_ref> Tag

11. Distributing Metadata
• Who? Publishers, aggregators, content
providers
• Include the metadata in all standard metadata
sets
– Intended that this population/distribution will
become part of standard editorial and production
workflows
• Could also include in alerts such as e-TOCs and
RSS feeds and A&I feeds

12. ALI Schema

13. JATS 1.1

14. Benefits of Successful
Implementation
Growth of OA + More Funder Mandates + Hybrids =
Lots of OA papers with different associated rights and
responsibilities =
Confusion concerning who can do what when
+
OA Metadata Indicator =
Transmittal of an article’s openness in a manner that
makes discovery, tracking, readership, and (hopefully)
reuse straightforward

15. Thank you! Questions?