Evolution of e-Content Distribution: Ad Hoc to Standardization

© Inera Inc., 2013. All Rights Reserved STM 2013

Evolution of e-Content Distribution:Ad Hoc to Standardization

Presented by Bruce D. Rosenblum

CEOInera Incorporated

NISO Virtual Conference, 21 November 2014


Back In The Olde Days

• Circa 1990…


Manuscript Submission

• Author submitted manuscript• Typewritten• … or longhand• … or both


Manuscript Editing Workflow

• Edit on paper


The Result


500 Years of Ink on Paper

• Gutenberg• Oldenburg• Linotype• Photon• PostScript


Early Online Publications• 1991: arXiv pre-print server• Full text LaTeX

• 1991: Elsevier Tulip project• TIFF page images and ASCII full-text

• 1993: Red Sage project• Bit-mapped page images

• 1995: Molecular Vision• Full text HTML (free)

• 1995: Journal of Biological Chemistry• SGML HTML at Highwire

• 1996: Science, Cell• SGML HTML at Highwire


Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom

• Many early projects• No standardization• Highwire Press• V 1.0: Accepted any SGML• V 2.0: (after 20 journals) Created Highwire DTD


Scholarly DTDs, Circa 2001

ISO 12083

Elsevier 1.1.0Elsevier 2.1.1

Elsevier 3.0.0Elsevier 4.1

Blackwell 2.2Blackwell 3.0

Blackwell 4.0

KetonCamdus

Capital CityCharlesworth

AldenHighwire 4.2.8

PMC 1.0AIP

UCP

WileyIEEE

NatureBioO

neU Chicago Press

Cambridge Univeristy Press

American GeoPhysical

American Medical

New England JournalAm

erican Chemical

National Resarch CanadaA

cade

mic

Pre

ss

Oxford University PressA

cade

mic

Pre

ss

SpringerLkuwer Academic


DOI Stands For...

• Digital Object Identifier


DOI Stands For...

• Digital Object Identifier • Dusty Old Issue


DOI Stands For...

• Digital Object Identifier • Dusty Old Issue• Death Of Ink


Death Of InkGutenberg: (Surveying the Frankfurt Book Fair)

“This commodity must be as precious as gold!”Gates: “Cheap as dirt, actually. And on its way out.

It’s called print. You invented it, or so history claims”

John UpdikePrint: A Dialog (1995)


Dusty Old IssueGates: “The card catalogues of entire libraries—the bulging

groaning repositories of the fading, crumbling fruit of your revolution—have been reduced to computer memory, exhaustively search in a twinkling!”

Gutenberg: “…And—if I may point out a technical problem—its product never achieves autonomy from its means of delivery. A book can lie unread for a century, and all it needs to come to life is to be scanned by a literate brain. This CD-ROM of yours—what machine will be able to read it a hundred years from now?”

John UpdikePrint: A Dialog (1995)



The Grand Mess

• Circa 2001• Dozens of DTDs• Print workflows twisted for online publication• Early standardization attempts failed• ISO 12083: “It is way too complicated, yet it is not flexible

enough to represent the things I need to have in the journal I publish on the Internet”

• Online content distribution was• Slow• Expensive• Painful


Growing Library Concerns

• Research libraries grew increasingly concerned with archiving eJournals• In 2001, Mellon funded research library grants to

study eJournal archiving• Harvard (and others) investigated building an

eJournal Archive• Collaborated with Blackwell, U Chicago Press, Wiley


Harvard DTD Study

• Is it feasible to develop one domain neutral and independent DTD into which all publisher content can be converted?• Result: e-Journal Archive DTD Feasibility Study• http://old.diglib.org/preserve/hadtdfs.pdf


Richard's ResponseI really think it would be great if the Harvard archiving project acted as a catalyst to get

publishers together to agree on a common DTD (or at least a common 'exchange' DTD). I know this idea has been kicking around for years and that ISO 12083 could be used, but nobody does.

It just seems that the time is right to float that idea for various reasons: everyone's in CrossRef and passing legacy data back and forth when journals change publisher. Each publisher has to throw a lot of resources at repurposing the data from the former publisher's DTD and then update CrossRef metadata and URLs to ensure continuity of service for readers.

Added to that, publishers are all consolidating their lists of typesetting suppliers and we're all using many typesetters in common - that seems to be another compelling economic reason for some kind of agreed common DTD for both XML-in typesetting and also for back conversion to XML.

But of course many people still think their DTD is better than anyone else's and that there's an advantage in doing things in a 'proprietary' way (bizarrely...) I think attitudes are changing and everyone realizes that all this SGML/XML stuff is difficult and complex (esp QC) and anything which might make it cheaper/easier would be welcomed.

Richard O'Beirne, 21 November 2001


The Result

• NLM DTD, aka “JATS”• Version 1.0, April 2003• Renamed JATS (Journal Article Tag Suite) in 2008• NISO Z39.96:2012• Continuous maintenance

• Impact of full text article XML standardization• Facilitated standard tools and workflows• Lowered costs• Allowed more journals to create full text XML• Promoted online publication and proper archiving


JATS Children

• JATS begat: • BITS: Book Interchange Tag Suite• ISO-STS: ISO Standards Tag Set


New Millennium, Decade one

• Journal publishers coalesce around JATS and CrossRef• Standardization and vendor consolidation bring• Stability• Lower costs• Common ground for new initiatives


New Online Content Initiatives• Journal Article Versions• NISO RP-8-2008, NISO RP-15-2013, Recommended

Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials

• Supplemental materials• NISO RP-15-2013, Recommended Practices for Online

Supplemental Journal Article Materials• Online identification• NISO RP-16-2013 PIE-J: The Presentation &

Identification of E-Journals Access and License• NISO Access and License Indicators (formerly

known as the "NISO Open Access Metadata & Indicators“)


New Metadata Requirements

• Author identifiers (ORCID)• Author disambiguation• http://orcid.org/

• Funding information (FundRef)• Identification of research funders• CrossRef initiative• http://www.crossref.org/fundref/index.html• http://www.crossref.org/fundref/fundref_registry.html• See also tools at http://labs.crossref.org/

• ORCID and FundRef permit agencies to monitor results of researching funding


Changing Publication Economics

• Online publication facilitates dissemination of information• Open Access publication improves access to

knowledge• But library subscription budgets are being cut• Changing economic environment requires more

highly integrated publishing ecosystem


CHORUS


Conclusions

• Publishers no longer “throw issues over the wall”• Scholarly publishing is more integrated then ever• Standardization facilitates integration and leads to

new publishing initiatives


Questions?

Bruce RosenblumCEO

Inera [email protected]

617-932-1932

Evolution of e-Content Distribution: Ad Hoc to Standardization

Education