...
- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTR8-d0Om-tplRbOCzNYikSqdR6ZWXWzXEJLOVnpQro/edit?usp=sharin
- This includes all of the fields that are available in RM license records. We want to get some consensus about:
- What fields do we care about, what ones can we ignore.
- Is there data we want to include that there is not an official field for, e.g. Text/Data mining provision?
- Are there any standards we should agree to, e.g. naming conventions, etc…
- Then use that to:
- Develop a coversheet/checklist for license review.
- Select a few licenses to start with that we should have identical agreements, like Springer, etc… to begin reviewing and seeing if we agree on what some interpretations might be.
Naming conventions :
- License Name: Vendor - Sub tile (i.e. Primary, Amendment 5, etc...) - Product (if appropriate)- Institution? (Cornell or Columbia?) - Consortium?
- License Type: Indicate Primary, Amendment, etc... or is this a misuse of the field? Values here could be Primary Negotiated, Amendment, Click Through, Shrinkwrap, etc..