Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
December 12, 2012
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato (Phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Rick Lugg (SCS), Andy Breeding (SCS)
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. Discuss with Rick & Andy SCS requested changes for proposal and scope of work
Rick Lugg and Andy Breeding from Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) met with the MSCS Project Team to discuss the proposal they submitted to them for collections analysis services.
Matthew had previously sent SCS requested changes and issues the Project Team had with the proposal. This included whether Dewey numbers could be converted to LC for data comparisons, and also whether the reverse could be done as well for the benefit of the public libraries so they can more easily work with the data. The Project Team also wanted to know what kind of subject access SCS provides. Is it by LC call number, or by LCSH, or through access to the OCLC Conspectus, or something else entirely?
Matthew started off the discussions by highlighting that the big issue for both the Project Team and SCS is how to analyze the collection by both Dewey and Library of Congress (LC) classifications. Particularly when not all of the records MSCS had back from OCLC had Dewey numbers.
Sara reported that in looking at the data that the Project Team got back from OCLC, and what is returned from the API, the majority (over 95%) of MSCS partner library items included an LC call number in the OCLC WorldCat master record.
Rick explained that after being made aware by Sara of the ability to publicly download the OCLC Conspectus (which she thought seemed to have good Dewey and LC matching to subject areas), he asked Chip Nilges from OCLC whether SCS would need a license to use the tool. Rick reported that they are still investigating this with OCLC and want to make sure they go through the right channels before they use it. Clem responded that he would be surprised if OCLC charged for something that can be downloaded for free!
Deb wanted the Project Team to clarify why it actually wanted both Dewey and LC classifications on reports given back to MSCS for retention. She thought that if libraries got an individual library report back for retention and/or possible weeding, it would include the local call number from the item record, i.e. the one used by that library, so it wouldn’t matter whether it was in Dewey or LC.
Clem argued that if you gave the 3 MSCS partner libraries that use Dewey a report in LC they would not know what to do with it. Clem went on to argue that having reports in Dewey order is fundamentally important and how public libraries think about retention is different to academic libraries. Barbara also pointed out that when MSCS is opened up to other libraries in Maine, the majority of them are going to be using Dewey.
Barbara explained why she thought the ARRC libraries in particular are going to want to look at the bigger picture (Bibliographic level) and subject strengths when making retention decisions.
Rick reported that subject analysis would be new territory for SCS as they had not previously worked with libraries that used Dewey, or used subject in the same way MSCS intends to for making retention and preservation decisions. Subject had only been use previously when looking at the volume of copies libraries agreed to retain, not which libraries would house particular subject material.
A further discussion then ensued regarding the OCLC Conspectus tool including what level of subject headings would meet MSCS needs. Barbara was thinking about having reports by Dewey 10’s. After looking at an example in the Conspectus, Barbara thought that it provided an acceptable (except for perhaps Geography) level of detail. However, both the Project Team and Rick & Andy were not convinced that the tool would meet MSCS needs.
Rick was concerned about what SCS would include in their collection summaries; he asked whether MSCS needed both a Dewey and LC version (which would require mapping). Rick also asked which subject scheme would be used for retention and preservation decision-making? Clem responded that MSCS partner libraries would need both numbers, so they could compare collections across all of the libraries. The list of subject designated libraries will likely be across academic and public libraries. Barbara would also prefer to have the Dewey number rather than just the subject name.
Clem asked Rick whether the comparison work MSCS were asking for might be of benefit to SCS in future projects. Rick wasn’t convinced it would because it would be unlikely that they would have another retention & preservation project that would need both Dewey and LC reports.
Clem explained how important it is to know the subject strengths of each library. Both Clem and Barbara could foresee transferring collections to libraries that are identified as having subject strengths.
Rick wanted the Project Team to think about what it was they actually wanted from subject analysis? Clem replied that he would need to be able to tell faculty that MSCS are protecting collections of different subjects. Deb asked whether MSCS wasn’t already doing this with the commitment to retain x amount of copies? Clem felt that this would be acceptable if there were common loan periods.
Rick asked what the Project Team would do about items with 0 circs. Clem responded that opinions differ on this, some MSCS library representatives believe that if an item has 0 circs it can be disposed of, whilst others would retain the item if it related to a specific subject. This emphasizes how important subject (even at a broad level) is for MSCS.
Rick described the SCS supported Michigan Shared Print Initiative which he argued had similar issues to MSCS. There was still an element of discretion in terms of what was retained even if a library was told it could dispose of an item. However, retention commitments were non-negotiable.
Rick expressed concern regarding those items without a Dewey number. Clem believes that OCLC should have this data, even if it was missing from the data Sara received back from them.
Clem posed the question: If an item is available in the HathiTrust does this mean a library could feel comfortable disposing of the physical copy? Or are there only certain categories where this would be the case? Rick reported that (in previous SCS projects) although HathiTrust data had been provided to libraries, retention decisions had not been based on this fact.
Another issue raised by the Project Team was whether SCS could compare MSCS data to holdings in the Internet Archive. Sara reported that she had successfully got the data dump from Open Library, so that data should be easily available to SCS.
Matthew asked whether in the expected data pull for SCS reserve data should be included. After debating how reserve items can affect circulation counts, the Project Team decided that Sara should pull this data even if it is not looked at by SCS, it is something that could be included in her collections analysis form, and also better to have the data if needed.
Rick also reminded the Project Team that to meet SCS requirements Sara would need to request that III pulls data in MARC format. A debate then ensued regarding whether III would charge for export tables.
Rick is going to get back to the Project Team before Christmas with their proposed solution to the mapping LC & Dewey issue. Rick will also send a revised proposal, taking into account the discussions at this meeting and the list of required edits provided by Matthew. This extra work will require the current timeline in the proposal to be revised.
Matthew asked Rick whether he could update the Project Team on the development of the SCS web-based analytics tool. Rick reported that they intend to have a ‘soft launch’ at ALA Mid-Winter Conference in Seattle, WA. However, Rick doesn’t think the product will benefit MSCS; it is intended for individual libraries rather than shared print projects.
The Project Team thanked Rick and Andy for meeting with them and agreed how useful it had been to have them there in-person.
b. 583 testing
i. ILLiad satellite library fee – Directors thoughts on OCLC Shared print symbol
The Project Team again expressed their opposition to the $1,200 annual ILLiad satellite library fee. However, they still want Sara to proceed with ordering the symbols for Bowdoin and Bangor Public to test ILL implications.
Sara mentioned that OCLC recognized that the use of the shared print symbol is far from ideal. Clem who is going to follow this up with OCLC on behalf of MSCS stated that the fee can’t be a one size fits all pricing model, where libraries no matter their size pay the same fee.
ii. ILL Testing
Sara is still waiting for OCLC to provide her with the Shared Print codes needed for testing to begin.
iii. LHR OCLC Tool testing
Sara reported that she has been involved in the initial testing of the OCLC prototype ‘do it yourself’ LHR creation service, but that it is still in its infant stages, and it is still unclear if it will be better than simply sending spreadsheets.
iv. Communications with III
James reported that a request has been placed for III to make the “n” tagged note field flow from URSUS (where it displays correctly) to MaineCat/INN-Reach, which it does not currently do.
c. HathiTrust
i. Directors Council meeting discussions regarding consortial membership & Shibboleth
James reported that after Friday’s MSCS Directors Council meeting he had followed up with Jeremy York (HathiTrust) regarding questions/concerns surrounding the implementation of Shibboleth for a consortial membership. Jeremy informed James that in terms of consortial membership MSCS partner libraries don’t necessarily need to have a single Shibboleth implementation, but for MSCS to be considered consortial, HathiTrust would want a single point of contact for the authentication information (which could possibly be coordinated through Maine InfoNet).
HathiTrust also could most likely support multiple inputs of catalog records (e.g. URSUS, Colby, Bowdoin, etc.) coming in separately, again as long as they are funneled through a single point of contact AND if they can be considered a single collection (e.g. since Bates has it, USM patrons should have access to it). Clem replied that the idea of a single collection would need to be studied further to look at the implications.
James did not discuss with Jeremy potential cost savings of consortial membership, he suggested that this was something Matthew could do. Clem thinks that cost should be measured by the unique count of items across the consortial libraries.
James gave an example of a HathiTrust member where the IP address was sufficient as authentication, not Shibboleth, or In-Common. HathiTrust also has a ‘library walk in’ option for walk in library patrons.
James believes that there are still some lingering authentication issues with the public MSCS library partners, but that overall the information from Jeremy was very positive.
d. Budget
i. Directors cost sharing funds query
Matthew sent an explanation to the MSCS Directors regarding the amount of cost sharing funds the MSCS partner libraries are expected to contribute. The funds which were originally intended to purchase an Espresso Book Machine were instead used in Year 1 to purchase a subscription to the OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis tool. The remaining funds will be used in Years 2 & 3 to pay for collections analysis services.
ii. Matthew present draft budget change justification
Matthew presented a draft budget change justification report which he intended to submit to IMLS. The report informs IMLS that funds originally intended to purchase an Espresso Book Machine were instead used in Year 1 to purchase a subscription to OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis tool. The remaining funds will be used in Years 2 & 3 to pay for collections analysis services. The report also informs IMLS that one of the MSCS Advisory Board members cannot accept stipends.
The Project Team approved the report, so Matthew will submit it to IMLS.
e. IMLS Interim Performance Report
i. Issue of EOD sentence
Matthew requested that the Project Team review a paragraph in the IMLS Interim Report regarding Print On Demand (POD) and E-Books On Demand (EOD). The Project Team requested that Matthew remove mention of ‘commercial book purchasing’ because none of the MSCS partner libraries have implemented this. Also removed was mention of a link to EOD in the CBBcat (a shared common discovery interface used by Colby, Bates & Bowdoin), because according to the Project Team this is not currently possible. The Project Team asked Matthew to add that Bates College provides links to Google Books and Project Guttenberg.
ii. Agree on final draft
The Project Team approved the report, so Matthew will submit it to IMLS.
f. MOU
i. Directors requested changes
Matthew reported that he had made the requested changes to the MOU after the MSCS Directors Council Meeting. David Nutty is going to request that the MOU be discussed at the next Maine InfoNet Board Meeting.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. Feedback from December 7, Directors Council Meeting
The Project Team agreed that the December 7, Directors Council Meeting went well.
b. Potential Speaking Opportunities
i. 2013 Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 27- July 2, 2013 – SCS Session
Matthew will contact Rick regarding the SCS Shared Print session once MSCS agrees on the SCS proposal (see above).
ii. 2013 IFLA Conference, Singapore, 17-23 August 2013 – Call for papers & potential IMLS foreign travel issue
Matthew informed the Project Team that he had received (via Deb) a call for presentation papers email notification from IFLA for their 2013 Conference in Singapore, 17-23 August 2013.
Matthew informed the Project Team that IMLS guidance states that: “For the purposes of these provisions, foreign travel includes any travel outside Canada, Mexico, the United States, and any United States territories and possessions. Each separate foreign trip must be itemized in the budget approved by IMLS. Foreign travel that is not included in the approved project budget must be specifically approved in writing by the appropriate IMLS program officer”.
After outlining the IFLA suggested themes the Project Team agreed that Matthew should submit a paper. Clem suggested that Matthew could discuss the issues involved with a multi-type library (both academic and public) project like MSCS.
iii. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon, May 18-21, 2013 – Call for papers
Matthew informed the Project Team that he had received (via Deb) a call for presentation papers email notification from The Acquisitions Institute at Timber for their 2013 Conference in Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon, May 18-21, 2013.
Deb suggested that although the dates were not great for the Project Team (with the MSCS Advisory Board due to take place right before), it could be something Sara could present at. Sara responded that the conference would be ideal for her as she lives relatively close to the venue. Matthew confirmed that the conference would be funded using grant funds.
Sara will produce a proposal and send Matthew a copy in the next couple of days for him to review, before it is submitted.
c. Advisory Board Visit Spring 2013 – Agree schedule
Matthew asked the Project Team whether they had, had any more ideas regarding the content of the Advisory Board visit, which has been tentatively scheduled for May 23rd and 24th 2013. Clem felt it was important that the Directors had the chance to hear about what was happening in the shared print world both nationally and internationally. This point was raised by David Nutty (University of Southern Maine) at the December 7, MSCS Directors Council Meeting. Matthew suggested that Board Members present at a MSCS Directors Council Meeting, which could be rescheduled from the beginning of June to the end of May. Clem would like to think more about what it is the Advisory Board should present on at the Maine InfoNet Collections Summit before the schedule is finalized.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. Jan. 9, Wednesday, 2-4pm, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library
b. Jan 25-29, ALA 2013 Midwinter Meeting, Seattle, WA
c. Matthew to send Doodle poll for next Directors Council Meeting due for March 2013