Maine Shared Collections Strategy Collection Development

April 7, 2014

Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room

2:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Attendees: Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Becky Albitz, Peggy O’Kane, Lanny Lumbert, Brian Damien, Sara Amato (call in), Clem Guthro, Linda Oliver

1.    Project Updates

The Committee welcomed Linda Oliver head of reference at Bangor Public Library as a new member of the MSCS Collection Development Committee.

a.    Disclosing retention commitments – local catalogs, OCLC, MaineCat & PAPR

Local catalogs

Sara has completed loading CTR statements into local catalogs for Step One monograph titles and there is now a public display of the statement in all MSCS libraries catalogs. See example.

Sara is currently working with local staff at MSCS libraries on loading CTR statements for serial/journal titles into the local catalog.

OCLC

Two weeks ago, MSCS were notified by Bill Carney OCLC’s Shared Print Support Liaison that OCLC Batchloading Services were starting to batch load MSCS retention commitments into the Local Holding Records of CTR titles.

OCLC have completed the batch loading for the University of Maine, Bowdoin College, Bangor Public, and the University of Southern Maine. Colby and Bates are next in line, with the Maine State Library and Portland Public Library to follow. Sara presented an example of the public display in WorldCat.org of the MSCS Shared Print Symbols and a screenshot from FirstSearch:

Deb asked Sara how the display will look in OCLC WorldCat Discovery which UMaine are soon to implement. Sara wasn’t sure, but she will look into this for Deb.

The project parameters have now been set up which should mean for any future batch loads there will only be a 24 hour turnaround time.

MSCS agreed that grant funds would be used to pay for the batchloading costs for all eight MSCS libraries. Matthew reported that Susan Clement at UMaine had received an invoice from OCLC for only UMaine’s portion of the batchloading fee. The bill was separate from their regular OCLC invoice and was for the University of Maine-Shared Collections, Institution Symbol MEUSP. Matthew will wait a few days to see whether the other libraries’ fees are added, if they aren’t he will check back with OCLC to make sure they understand MSCS’s billing requirements.

The Committee agreed to contact Matthew if their libraries are billed for the batch loading process.

MaineCat

The display of retention statements in MaineCat is currently drawn from the OCLC holding, so as soon as the commitments started appearing in OCLC they also began automatically appearing in MaineCat. Sara presented an example of the display in MaineCat.

Matthew thanked the Committee for their quick turnaround on agreeing the display of the commitments in MaineCat via email prior to the meeting.

Clem commented that Innovative Interfaces, Inc. will hopefully have a long-term fix to allow the flow of the 583 commitments from local catalogs to the union catalog MaineCat. Clem hoped he and James Jackson Sanborn (Maine InfoNet) will see a showcase of the display (both at the bib and item level) in action at an INN-Reach Summit next month in Portland, OR. Until then it is unclear how the display will differ to the current display.

PAPR

Sara showed that MSCS libraries were included in the Center for Research Libraries’ (CRL) Print Archives Preservation Registry as archiving institutions (see here), but as yet there is no holdings information for MSCS retention commitments made for archived titles (see example). Sara has been communicating with CRL about the process for submitting holdings information for CTR journals and serials to evaluate whether it’s going to be an onerous task for staff and how often the loads are required.

Matthew commented that based on a webinar he attended on PAPR last week it does not appear to be an onerous task; it would just be an extract from local libraries with the same information OCLC requires. Matthew went on that if MSCS libraries did contribute holding data for CTR items they could utilize PAPR’s collection analysis services to compare local holdings with retention commitments made by other shared print initiatives.

Deb asked whether the lists will need to be filtered of monograph series (as PAPR is only for serials and journals) that were cataloged as ‘s’. Sara responded that she wasn’t planning on doing this, but that she could provide libraries with lists of titles should they want to filter the lists of monographs.

The Committee agreed that the lists of CTR items would be submitted to PAPR without any filtering of suspected monograph titles.

b.    End of work with SCS

Now that the collection analysis for monographs is complete, Matthew has contacted Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) team to thank them for all of their work with MSCS. Rick Lugg (President of SCS) is going to use part of Matthew’s message as a testimonial on their website. The Committee were in agreement that MSCS would not have been able to make the progress they had without SCS support.

c.    SA guidance

Between now and the end of July when she finishes, Sara is putting together guidance for libraries to follow for adding/reversing commitments in catalogs, updating OCLC LHR’s, submitting holdings information for HathiTrust, and loading E-book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand records.

d.    Teaching document

Matthew is currently working on a shared print teaching document that draws upon MSCS’s experiences to provide advice for other initiatives attempting similar work. Matthew hopes to have a draft copy ready to send to the Project Team by the end of the week. Matthew will also send the Committee a copy for comment because there is lot in the document about the different decisions made during collection analysis.

e.    Clem OCLC/CIC presentation

Clem reported on the OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management Symposium he attended and presented at in Dublin, OH from March 27-28.

OCLC had conducted research into the CIC collection which showed lots of uniqueness between the libraries.

Clem went on to discuss a question he had asked at the Symposium concerning the political side of shared print and how important it was for MSCS to have common circulation data and a shared ILS, which is not something most other shared print initiatives will have.

There was a lot of positive feedback concerning MSCS’s achievements, particularly the loading of retention statement into OCLC which had started a few days before the presentation. Matthew and other MSCS representatives had tweeted during the symposium to provide supplementary information to Clem’s presentation.

f.    E-book-On-Demand & Print-On-Demand testing update

EOD

Overall the numbers of clicks on the links are quite low 1-7 per day. Interestingly the POD request form has more clicks than the E-book-On-Demand links for HathiTrust.

POD

MSCS are still using grant funds to test the POD service in MaineCat and have now received approx. 60 requests, with some individuals requesting multiple items.

Matthew reported that:

●    24 titles requested were available as print copies in MaineCat
●    24 titles requested were from the HathiTrust
●    15 titles requested were from patrons of MSCS libraries

There was an issue at the beginning of March when MSCS realized that the UMaine email systems were filtering the POD requests which meant they weren’t being received. This resulted in a backlog of requests. Despite these delays feedback from requesters shows they were pleased with the service and many were pleasantly surprised they received the book and got to keep it.

Deb and Matthew have met with the head of the UMaine Bookstore, Dick Young, to discuss the possibility of them taking over the service which would involve introducing a cost to requesters. Matthew is still waiting to hear back from Dick about his investigations into taking over this service.

g.    HathiTrust membership update

UMaine’s process to become a HathiTrust partner is almost complete, the only thing remaining is to load print holdings information and for HathiTrust to fully integrate the holdings. Jeremy York informed MSCS that this should take about two weeks. Matthew commented that he hopes by next month UMaine will have become a member.

Clem reported that Tom Teper (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) has been appointed as Chair of the HathiTrust shared print initiative. HathiTrust will be committing to retain physical copies of items they have made available digitally. Clem spoke with Tom at the OCLC event (see above) about his availability for presenting at the MSCS shared print session at ALA Annual. Tom is going to check his schedule and get back to Clem on his availability. Matthew responded that Ben Bunnell from Google Books has now agreed to present at the ALA session alongside a to be confirmed presenter from the HathiTrust.

Clem discussed the benefits of using Shibboleth for other authentication purposes than just for HathiTrust.

h.    HathiTrust custom Maine collection is live

The “Maine Collection” in the HathiTrust is now live and a collection description has been added. There are still some remaining issues with the collection before ownership is transferred to Deb. Sara and Deb are also trying to find out how frequently the collection needs to be updated to incorporate new items added to HathiTrust. Matthew presented a page Deb had produce on the UMaine Fogler library pages detailing the criteria used to create the collection, complete with a link to the collection. Maine is the first state to have such a collection.

i.    MSCC survey

Matthew has closed the survey he sent out to Maine library directors on cooperative collection management. Of the 326 directors who received the survey 131 took part, which Matthew thought was good going. Peggy commented that this was standard for similar surveys.

Matthew reported that the interest in potential MSCC elements is a promising sign of the likelihood of other libraries joining MSCC in the future. Matthew will have more to say on the results of the survey once they have been discussed with the Project Team.

2.    Remaining activities

a.    CTR reversal criteria – review draft

Matthew presented a draft copy of a policy for when MSCS retention commitments can be transferred, or as a last resort, reversed. Matthew commented that the policy and criteria took into account email comments from the Committee about physical condition not being the only justification for why a CTR could be transferred or reversed. Matthew went on that he knows all of retention work is based on trust, but he still thinks MSCS needed to tread carefully with the policy and it’s criteria to ensure it doesn’t undermine the retention commitments.

Brian commented that one thing he wasn’t sure had been discussed previously was reversing commitments on legal materials. If the Maine Law Library and the Nathan and Henry B. Cleaves Law Library are retaining the material does that mean MSCS libraries don’t have to? A discussion then ensued regarding whether these materials should be exempt from MSCS, similarly to the way government documents were excluded from commitments because UMaine are committed to retain these materials anyway. Peggy commented that the Maine Law library is keeping one copy of Maine materials.

Matthew agreed to contact John Barden (Director of the Maine Law Library) to see if they have commitments to retain Maine law documents which might mean MSCS libraries don’t have to.

Deb commented that libraries should have sufficient material that hasn’t received a CTR which they could prioritize for weeding rather than CTR items.

Deb commented that there still needs to be procedures to go alongside the policy for libraries to follow for transferring, or removing a CTR in particular transferring commitments to another libraries copy.

Matthew commented that having nominated collection builders is something that could be factored into the procedures, so libraries know that if they have materials on particular subject, library x should be consulted first about transferring the CTR, or even ingesting them. This would just be an expressed interest not a commitment to definitely retain them.

The Committee agreed to identify and report to Matthew any subject areas they want their libraries to be nominated as a collection builder for.

A discussion then ensued regarding the MSCC Collections and Operations Committee being responsible for reviewing lists of titles that libraries want to transfer or reverse commitments on. Matthew commented that it’s important to ensure the last copy of a CTR title is not weeded from the MSCS collective collection.

Matthew agreed to speak to James Jackson Sanborn (Maine InfoNet) about developing an operations side to the MSCS/MSCC website for MSCC Collections and Operations Committee to post lists of transfer and reversal candidates which will also include an alert feed.

Brian asked what the definition of “large” was in the following statement from the policy “Removal of commitment. Libraries will remove retention commitments on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches”. Deb responded that she meant 100’s of titles at a time.

b.    Digitizing rare/local protection titles – report back on list reviews & step one titles

At their March meeting, the Committee had agreed to identify in lists of CTR titles from Step Two that were published before 1930 and were not in the HathiTrust list from SCS candidate areas for digitization. Compared to a lot of the Committee’s previous work there was a relatively small amount of titles in this category—approx.4,000 in total across all MSCS libraries. Matthew commented that MSCS might decide not to proactively digitize, but be more reactive to user needs and provide a Digitize-On-Demand service to a category of titles with a request form in catalogs. Mathew asked the Committee to report back on their findings

Linda reported that Patrick Layne at Bangor Public Library had reviewed some of their list of 811 titles and assigned the reviewed items into three categories:

●    Items still under copyright (date or Stanford Copyright Renewal Database)
●    Items that Patrick digitized and are either already added to Bangor Public Library Digital Commons or slated for future addition
●    Items that are low digitization priority for Bangor Public Library

Peggy reported that the Maine State Library had reviewed their list and had already begun digitizing titles.

Brian commented that at Portland Public, Maine imprints would be the priority for any digitization efforts.

Joan asked whether there are grant funds to support this work and how it related to MSCS. Matthew responded there wasn’t grant funds available, but that identifying candidates for digitization was mentioned as an activity in the MSCS grant application, which was why he was investigating it as preservation method. Clem responded that a wider spread effort would need to be supported by grant funds or possibly collectively approach Google Books for a digitization project. A discussion then ensued regarding the work load and work flow that would be required if Google Books were approached.

Joan and Becky reported that having looked at their lists they won’t be conducting any digitization work of the titles contained in them because it’s not a priority for their institutions. Clem and Deb also agreed that they didn’t see it as a priority.

Matthew and Sara will send the Committee lists of titles from Step One that were published before 1930 and were not in the HathiTrust list from SCS candidate areas for digitization. Matthew reiterated that the digitization work was not compulsory and as such libraries could choose to just digitize some or even none of the titles.

The Committee agreed to share with Matthew any digitization work that is conducted using the CTR lists provided, so he can include it in his reports to IMLS.

c.    Reviewing ‘rare’ titles in stacks – report back on list reviews & step one titles

At their March meeting, the Committee had agreed to review lists of ‘rare’ titles that were in the Step Two lists to identify items they might want to consider moving from circulating areas to special collections. These titles were where there are fewer than 10 OCLC holdings, and were tagged as ‘Circulating’ by SCS. At the request of the Committee Sara had also filtered from the list authors starting with Maine and publishers with Maine or Me. and Augusta. Mathew asked the Committee to report back on their findings.

Lanny commented that a lot of the circulating items on USM’s list were in special collections at other MSCS libraries, so to meet the MSCS retention criterion of “All special collections/archives copies and at least one accompanying circulating copy”, USM were required to still keep the item in a circulating area. Lanny reported that he had tried to work out what items are in circulating areas at the Maine State Library, but had experienced difficulties understanding the different location codes used. Peggy responded with an explanation of previous and current policies regarding where material was shelved at the Maine State Library.

Clem reported that he had spoken to Colby’s head of special collections about this work and he didn’t think there would be a significant transfer of materials. The Committee discussed how just because an item is old, rare or valuable it doesn’t necessarily mean it should be in special collections. Also, all institutions had issues with space being at a premium in their special collections. The Committee also debated how ‘rare’ in OCLC doesn’t necessarily mean rare (especially as a lot of Maine libraries are not members) and that in some cases there might be a legitimate reason why it is rare, as other libraries have not deemed it necessary to add or keep in their collections.

Deb reported that she had reviewed UMaine’s titles and there were only 11 items that she would consider moving to special collections from circulating areas.

Matthew and Sara will send the Committee lists of ‘rare’ titles from Step One to review.

The Committee agreed to share with Matthew any transfers that are made using the CTR lists provided so he can include it in his reports to IMLS.

d.    Collection building and un-building – identify potential opportunities

See above

e.    Forming MSCC committee

The Maine InfoNet Board of Directors discussed at their March meeting the appointment of MSCC committees. The Directors decided that current MSCS committees should continue their activities until this August. Also, the Directors want the current MSCS Collection Development Committee to make recommendations to the MSCC Board for the role and responsibilities of the Collections & Operations Committee. Matthew commented that his initial ideas were that they would be responsible for:

●    Any tweaking of retention policy that is required
●    Issues around transferring and reversing retention commitments
●    Making decisions on digitization work (which actually based on comments above look less likely)
●    Discussing issues with retention commitment disclosure

In the long-term the committee’s role and responsibilities will be dependent like so much else on whether new libraries become members of MSCC. In the future there will also hopefully be another round of collection analysis involving the MSCS partners that the committee will be actively involved with.

Mathew asked the Committee whether they had any thought on what work will be required post-grant for MSCS collection staff as part of MSCC.

Clem discussed how MSCC will need to consider how Maine fits into the larger shared print world, particularly how the development of the Eastern Academic Scholars’ Trust (EAST) will impact the work of MSCC for example, the potential for preferential resource sharing. Matthew responded that as things currently stand EAST membership is only going to be open to academic libraries, so MSCS public libraries would not be able to participate. Also, there might be some issues between the disparity in retention periods between MSCS and EAST proposals that would need to be addressed. EAST will be organizing a member meeting in July for interested libraries.

Matthew agreed to write-up his thoughts on the role and responsibilities of the Collections and Operations Committee and include Clem’s idea for assessing the impact of other shared print initiatives.

Clem reported that at the April Maine InfoNet Board of Directors meeting the Executive Committee created the MSCC Board. The members are:

Clem Guthro, Chair
Linda Lord
Barbara McDade
David Nutty
Joyce Rumery

f.    End of project meeting

MSCS activities will come to an end in August 2014. Matthew is considering the possibility of organizing an end of project wrap-up meeting with the different MSCS committees. Once Matthew has some firmer ideas on this he will share them with the Committee.

3.    Date of next meeting

Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll with dates and time options for the next Collection Development meeting which might not necessarily need to be in-person.