Child pages
  • KE Usage Statistics Guidelines

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Publishers and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics (PIRUS), which was funded by JISC, aims to develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual article level that can be implemented by any entity (publisher, aggregator, IR, etc.,) that hosts online journal articles. The project will enable the usage of research outputs to be recorded, reported and consolidated at a global level in a standard way. An important outcome of this project was a range of scenarios for the "creation, recording and consolidation of individual article usage statistics that will cover the majority of current repository installations" "Developing a global standard to enable the recording, reporting and consolidation of online usage statistics for individual journal articles hosted by institutional repositories, publishers and other entities (Final Report)", p.3. <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/pals3/pirus_finalreport.pdfImage Removed>.
  2. Te German OA-Statistics <http://www.dini.de/projekte/oa-statistik/> project, which is funded DINI (Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerk Information), has set up an infrastructure in which various certified repositories across Germany can exchange their usage data.
  3. In the Netherlands, the project Statistics on the Usage of Repositories <http://www.surffoundation.nl/nl/projecten/Pages/SURE.aspx> (SURE) has a very similar objective. The project, which is funded by SURFfoundation, aimed to find a method for the creation of reliable and mutually comparable usage statistics and has implemented a national infrastructure for the accumulation of usage data.
  4. The Network of European Economists Online <http://www.neeoproject.eu/> (NEEO) is an international consortium of 18 universities which maintains a subject repository that provides access to the results of economic research. As part of this project, extensive guidelines have been developed for the creation of usage statistics. NEEO has also developed an aggregator for usage statistics. The central database is exposed via a web service which can provide information on the number of downloads for each publication.

...

The document-centric approach of OAI-PMH results in the following central problems when applied to usage data:

4.1.1. Requirement for metadata record identifiers

(see OAI-PMH, 2.4 )

Data providers must issue identifiers for data records to formally comply with OAI-PMH. THE OAI identifiers should adhere to the OAI Identifier Format, as descibed in the OAI-PMH guidelines. These identifiers are not used by the log aggregator.

4.1.2. Datestamps for records

(see OAI-PMH, 2.7.1)

OAI-PMH requires datestamps for all records of provided data. the datestamp within the OAI-PMH record header must be the time at which the Context Object or the Context Objects container has been stored in the database which feeds the OAI-PMH interface.

...

The OAI-PMH specification allows for either exact-to-the-second or exact-to-the-day granularity for record header datestamps. The data providers may chose one of these possibilities. The service provider will most certainly rely on overlapping harvesting, i. e. the most recent datestamp of the harvested data is used as the "from" parameter for the next OAI-PMH query. Thus, the data provider will provide some records that have been harvested before. Duplicate records are matched by their identifiers (those in the OAI-PMH record header) and are silently tossed if their datestamp is not renewed (see notes below on deletion tracking).It is strongly recommended to implement exact-to-the-second datestamps to keep redundancy of the transferred data as low as possible.

4.1.3. MetadataPrefix

A KE-compliant OAI-PMH interface must support the "ctxo" metadataPrefix. In responmse to each OAI-PMH request that specifies the "ctxo" prefix, it must return KE-compliant context objects.

4.1.4. Mandated metadata in Dublin Core (DC) format

OAI-PMH repositories must be able to provide records with metadata expressed in Dublin Core. As a minimum, a rudimentary DC data set (identifier and description) should be provided which should describe the data offered and linked to by a certain identifier (see above regarding the identifier discussion). For creating a DC data set, follow the DRIVER guidelines. Example Warning: the XML excerpts given in these guidelines as illustrations do not necessarily contain all details regarding XML namespaces and XML schema. Nevertheless this omitted information is to be included in actual implementations and must not be considered optional.

...

Also, the choice of identifiers imposes problems: According to the OAI-PMH specification, the identifier within the DC metadata set must link to the described document. When understood as being metadata, the data contained in one <contextobject> or in a <context-objects> aggregation is best described as being metadata of the usage events in a given time frame. Those usage events, however, regularly do not have their own identifiers yet. So in order to comply with DC requirements, too, identifiers have to be generated for those usage events as well (ID2 in the excerpt above). However, by now there seems to be no immediate use case for such identifiers. Therefore, in the context of these guidelines, offering DC metadata is not required.

4.1.5. Usage of Sets

(see OAI-PMH, 2.7.2 )

OAI-PMH optionally allows for structuring the offered data in "sets" to support selective harvesting of the data. Currently, this possibility is not further specified in these guidelines. Future refinements may use this feature, e. g. for selecting usage data for certain services. Provenance information is already included in the Context Objects.

4.1.6. Deletion tracking

(see OAI-PMH, 2.5.1)

The OAI-PMH provides functionalities for the tracking of deletion of records. Compared to the classic use case of OAI-PMH (metadata of documents) the use case presented here falls into a category of data which is not subject to long-term storage. Thus, the tracking of deletion events does not seem critical since the data tracking deletions would summarize to a significant amount of data.However, the service provider will accept information about deleted records and will eventually delete the referenced information in its own data store. This way it is possible for data providers to do corrections (e. g. in case of technical problems) on wrongly issued data.It is important to note that old data which rotates out of the data offered by the data provider due to its age will not to be marked as deleted for storage reasons. This kind of data is still valid usage data, but not visible anymore.The information about whether a data provider uses deletion tracking has to be provided in the response to the "identify" OAI-PMH query within the <deletedRecords> field. Currently, the only options are "transient" (when a data provider applies or reserves the possibility for marking deleted records) or "no".The possible cases are:

  • Incorrect data which has already been offered by the data provider shall be corrected. There are two possibilities:
    • Re-issuing of a corrected set of data carrying the same identifier in the OAI-PMH record header as the set of data to be corrected, with an updated OAI-PMH record header datestamp
    • When the correction is a full deletion of the incorrect issued data, the OAI-PMH record has to be re-issued without a Context Object payload, with specified "<deleted>" flag and updated datestamp in the OAI-PMH record header.
  • Records that fall out of the time frame for which the data provider offers data: These records are silently neglected, i. e. not offered via the OAI-PMH interface anymore, without using the deletion tracking features of OAI-PMH.

4.1.7. Metadata formats

(see OAI-PMH, 3.4)

All data providers have to provide support for <context-object> documents or <context-objects> aggregations, respectively.This choice also has to be announced in the response to the "listMetadataFormats" query OAI-PMH, 4.4 by the data provider. While a specific "metadataPrefix" is not required, the information about "metadataNamespace" and "schema" is fixed for implementations:

Code Block
xml
xml
linenumbertrue
titleOAI-PMH listMetadataFormats
collapsetrue
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH>
...
<metadataFormat>
  <metadataPrefix>ctxo</metadataPrefix>
  <schema>http://www.openurl.info/registry/docs/xsd/info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:ctx</schema>
  <metadataNamespace>info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:ctx</metadataNamespace>
</metadataFormat>
...
</OAI-PMH>

...


4.1.8. Inclusion of Context Objects in OAI-PMH records

Corresponding to the definition of XML encoded Context Objects as data format of the data exchanged via the OAI-PMH, the embedding is to be done conforming to the OAI-PMH:

...

Code Block
xml
xml
linenumbertrue
titlemethod 2 : each Context Object in separate OAI-PMH records : OAI-PMH listRecords metadataPrefix=ctxo
collapsetrue
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH>
...
<record>
    <header>
        <identifier>urn:uuid:fd23522e-c447-4801-9be4-c93c60a2d550 </identifier>
        <datestamp>2009-06-02T14:10:02Z</datestamp>
    </header>
    <metadata>
        <context-object xmlns="info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:ctx" datestamp="2009-06-01T19:20:57Z">
          ...
        </context-object>
    </metadata>
</record>
<record>
    <header>
        <identifier>urn:uuid:1ad69103-6bd0-4a90-ae75-e4b644c136a6 </identifier>
        <datestamp>2009-06-02T14:10:04Z</datestamp>
    </header>
    <metadata>
        <context-object xmlns="info:ofi/fmt:xml:xsd:ctx" datestamp="2009-06-01T19:21:07Z">
          ...
        </context-object>
    </metadata>
</record>
...
</OAI-PMH>

 


4.2. SUSHI

OAI-PMH is a relatively light-weight protocol which does not allow for a bidirectional traffic. If a more reliable error-handling is required, the Standardised Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) must be used. SUSHI http://www.niso.org/schemas/sushi/ was developed by NISO (National Information Standards Organization) in cooperation with COUNTER. This document assumes that the communication between the aggregator and the usage data provider takes place as is explained in figure 4.


...

The "user" as defined in section 2 of this report is assumed to be a human user. Consequently, the focus of this document is on requests which have consciously been initiated by human beings. Automated visits by internet robots must be filtered from the data as much as possible. 


Info
titleDefinition of a "robot" according to robotstxt.org

A robot is a program that automatically traverses the Web's hypertext structure by retrieving a document, and recursively retrieving all documents that are referenced.
- http://www.robotstxt.org/faq/what.html, also used as definition by (Geens, 2006), (Heinonen, 1996}

...