Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
January 9, 2013
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato (Phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. Discuss revised SCS proposal
Prior to the meeting, Matthew had sent around a copy of the revised Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) proposal to the Project Team, with his comments. Matthew requested that the Project Team agreed on the proposal at the meeting, to avoid further delays and asked if anyone had any comments/questions/issues.
Sara wanted to know whether, as with OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis, the data pull should be restricted to those items created before 2005. The Project Team agreed that this should still be the case for the new data pull.
Deb asked Matthew to clarify the increase in costs in the revised proposal. Matthew explained that instead of treating URSUS as a single entity, the revised proposal treats them separately, which means producing separate lists and analyses for the: University of Maine Orono, University of Southern Maine, the State Library, and Bangor Public Library. This means there will be setup fees for 8 libraries, rather than the original 5.
The Project Team agreed on the proposal and requested that Matthew proceeds with submitting the UMaine Sole Source Justification form to Joyce Rumery, University of Maine’s Dean of Libraries. The form outlines why SCS should be contracted without going through a procurement process because an alternative supplier could not be identified. James reminded Matthew to update the dollar amounts in the form, to reflect the updated figures in the revised proposal. Matthew will update and submit the form, which he hopes will be processed ASAP. James reported that in terms of delays, he had mixed experiences when submitting this form previously.
Matthew will inform Rick of the Project Team’s decision and send a copy of the proposal to the MSCS Collections Development Committee, so they are kept in the loop.
Matthew asked who from MSCS would sign the proposal. The Project Team agreed that Deb as both a Project PI and University of Maine employee should sign it.
Matthew reported that to avoid delays he has already been working with Rick and Sara on pulling the required date for SCS. Sara has scheduled a MSCS Technical Services Committee (see below) to review what data needs to be pulled and produce a plan of action.
A discussion then ensued regarding the organization of the SCS planning meeting which according to the SCS proposal, is where: “Key players discuss data extracts, mappings, anomalies; define peers, title protection rules”. The Project Team decided that Matthew should organize this meeting now, rather than wait until the UMaine Sole Source Justification form (see above) is approved. The meeting will be an all-day event and will be held at Colby College. Clem will identify a location that will meet space and infrastructure requirements.
Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll to the different MSCS groups with days a week apart and a backup choice for a snow day.
b. OCLC Shared Print Symbol & 583 testing
i. ILLiad satellite library fee – Phone conversation with Bill Carney & Katie Birch
Matthew reminded the Project Team that after he had tweeted about the discussions at the MSCS Directors Council Meeting regarding the ILLiad Satellite Library fee, he had received a meeting request from Bill Carney at OCLC to discuss the fee with himself and Katie Birch from Atlas. Matthew, Deb, Sara and Clem discussed the fee with Bill and Katie, but no progress could be made and the fee will remain. Matthew believed that Bill did understand MSCS issues with the fee, but that Katie was not willing to compromise. The Project Team also agreed that the model of satellite library does not work for MSCS. The MSCS academic libraries are existing ILLiad members and so are not attempting to ‘piggy back’ on other libraries’ membership.
Sara reported that as part of the discussions she had been having with OCLC regarding the LHR OCLC Tool testing (see below) she has been asked by Bill Carney to articulate in a couple of sentences the problems with using Worldcat Resource Sharing (WRS) rather than ILLiad. Sara has asked Guy Salander (Bowdoin) to write this for MSCS. Matthew also forwarded to Sara and Guy a description from Greg Curtis (UMaine) regarding the differences between the two products. Matthew reported that it is clear from discussions with Guy and Greg that the libraries use ILLiad for its functionality and that moving to WRS would have a negative effect on workflow.
Matthew and other MSCS representatives will raise concerns with the fee at the OCLC sessions at ALA Mid-Winter (see below).
ii. ILL Testing
Sara reported that she has received the shared print symbol codes from OCLC, but has not flipped the symbols for the test items. After the comments she received from Guy regarding issues with using Worldcat Resource Sharing (see above) she was unsure whether Guy would still want to go ahead with the testing. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they wanted testing to proceed. Clem responded that tests should still be conducted.
iii. LHR OCLC Tool testing
Sara reported that she had a phone conference with Bill Carney, Lizanne Payne, Tip House and Constance Malpas from OCLC regarding the Local Holding Record Generator. Sara doubts whether the tool will be any easier than sending spreadsheets to the OCLC batch load services. However, it might be quicker because there is a back log of requests which delays even straightforward requests. Therefore, the benefit of the tool would not be the effect it would have on workload, but instead if it could make the process more streamlined.
iv. Communications with III – ‘n’ & ‘z’ field tags
Sara updated the Project Team on communications with III (Innovative Interfaces, Inc.) regarding the ‘n’ & ‘z’ field tags. Venice Bayrd (Maine InfoNet) reported that the explanation Tom Jacobson from III gave regarding local item field group tag ‘n’ was incorrect. After tests, Venice found that only the first local ‘x’ field group tag will transfer from local server to central server 949 subfield ‘n’. The local server item field group tag ‘n’ will not transfer. Local field ‘x’ is already being widely used for other purposes, so is not suitable. Tom Jacobson expressed surprise at the ‘n’ tagged item note field not transferring to the central system. He informed Sara he was going to check up on this and get back to her. Sara had originally wanted to know whether he could provide a quote for moving 583 data to the central server, but he still has not responded to that.
Sara made some suggestions to Venice for testing the 856 field and whether that transfers. After conducting tests Venice found that the 856 does, in fact, transfer, but would show displays of data already in the 856 field not related to MSCS. Whilst not ideal Sara still believes that using 856 is currently the best option for displaying retention decisions. Sara is going to ask the MSCS Technical Services Committee members at Friday’s meeting (see below) whether they would have a problem for the field to be used for retention decisions.
Deb asked Sara if she could send to the Project Team the 856 test displays in catalogs. Sara responded that she will send them around for comment.
James asked Sara whether the displays were in the live or staging version of MaineCat. Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) is currently working on updates for redoing the look of MaineCat, which involves deciding which fields display and how. So James wanted to make sure Albie’s work was not going to affect Venice’s work with displaying the 856 field. They are making sure to coordinate their work, but there have been some isolated issues.
c. HathiTrust
i. Consortial membership pricing & data pull
Matthew updated the Project Team on discussions he had been having with Jeremy York from HathiTrust regarding pricing for consortial membership. The purpose of these discussions is to look at whether consortial membership makes financial sense. If MSCS were to become consortial members they would be charged according the unique OCLC numbers. Therefore, Jeremy informed Matthew that in order for them to be able to provide pricing information MSCS would need to provide lists of unique OCLC numbers from each of the institutions. For each institution, they would want two lists: one for OCLC numbers of print monographs and one for OCLC numbers of print serials.
Sara will extract this data along with the data needed for SCS. Sara has produced a matrix to track which data does and doesn’t need to be pulled for SCS and HathiTrust and will discuss it with the MSCS Technical Services Committee members at Friday’s meeting (see below).
ii. Authentication issues
Matthew asked James whether any progress had been made regarding authentication issues with joining HathiTrust. James responded that UMaine are going to look again at Shibboleth in spring. Clem reported that Colby are currently in the process of implementing Shibboleth, using outside IT consultants.
Matthew reported that Judy Montgomery (Bowdoin) had asked him and James whether there is a reason why Bowdoin should not start implementing Shibboleth. Also whether the idea of a single Shibboleth contact for authentication information only means that HathiTrust wants to work through one person and therefore does not impact on individual implementations? Matthew and James had both responded that Bowdoin should go ahead with implementing Shibboleth and that it would not have a negative effect on consortial membership.
A discussion then ensued regarding whether MSCS grant funds could be used for supporting the process of implementing Shibboleth.
d. Budget
i. Submission to IMLS
Matthew reported that the budget change justification document was submitted directly to Chuck Thomas, the IMLS contact person for MSCS, who so far has not responded. Matthew had to go through the University of Maine -Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) to submit the document which meant a bit of a delay whilst they tried to identify who should sign and submit it. Eventually the document was signed by Arlene Russell and sent to IMLS.
Matthew informed the Project Team that he had received an invoice from the MSCS website designers Rainstorm for annual fees. They asked for $350, but $299 was the amount agreed to in their proposal. After Matthew contacted them they agreed to charge only $299, but said the fee would go up next year to $350.
James expressed surprise at this fee, he was under the impression that MSCS had already paid for this and that the fees were not for hosting, because Maine InfoNet hosts the site. Matthew responded that all he had in terms of records of what was agreed was the proposal from RainStorm which includes $299 per year for WordPress Support Plan. James and Deb believed there should be a signed agreement with RainStorm. Matthew responded that he would look into it and report back to them.
e. IMLS Interim Performance Report
i. Submission to IMLS
Matthew reported that as with the budget he had to go through ORSP to get it submitted, which resulted in delays, but it was still submitted on time. This report was sent directly to IMLS and Matthew has not received any feedback from them.
f. MOU
i. Present at Maine InfoNet Board Meeting
Matthew reported that he had sent a copy of the MOU to David Nutty (USM), for him to add it to the agenda of the next Maine InfoNet Board Meeting, which is on February 6th 2013. Matthew asked if those Project Team members attending the meeting could please ensure it is on the agenda.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. Modern Language Association Conference – ‘How Many Copies is Enough?: Too Many? Libraries and Shared Monograph Archives’ session, January 4, 2013
Clem attended this session in Boston and found it to be very interesting. The session was chaired by a mixture of librarians and faculty. Clem had expected more faculty in attendance, but it was mostly librarians.
Jay Schafer (University of Massachusetts’s Amherst Library) outlined the familiar themes of space issues and cost of storing legacy materials.
Clem found Professor Andrew M. Stauffer’s (University of Virginia, Department of English) part of the session really interesting. Andrew’s area of expertise is 19th century reading habits and he is looking at what people write in books, not the books themselves. By looking at this one might be able to see who owned it, read it and any interesting things in the book for example, enclosed letters.
Andrew also argued that some books should not be seen in isolation, but instead as part of a collection. Also the formation of the collection for example, through gifts can say a lot about the institution. If this material is disposed of you could lose a valuable part of the institution’s history.
Into the 20th century there was more uniformity in printing which resulted in less interesting examples. Therefore with books from the 20th century onwards there is less concern with downsizing and sharing copies.
In Andrew’s opinion it is not just the text that is interesting. The physical collection is more important to the institution than a digital copy could be. Clem used the example, of the Benjamin Butler Collection at Colby College.
Clem also raised the issue of the generic item descriptions in OCLC, which do not make reference to individual differences.
There was also a discussion at the session regarding user generated metadata, for users to capture interesting issues they have identified (not necessarily contained in the text) whilst accessing a book. The Project Team recognized whilst this approach could have it users, in reality wide-scale granular examinations are not possible. There are also security issues associated with raising the awareness of a book’s fiscal value.
Clem pointed out that the benefit of MSCS is that although specific libraries will make retention commitments, it does not prevent other libraries from retaining their copy, particularly if after reviewing it they identify interesting features.
The Project Team discussed how there is not the same emotional attachment, or collectability with journals as there is with monographs. There are sometimes a selective collective of journals, for example, certain editions are collected rather than the whole series. Also some specific 19th century journals, like those on automobiles (which Bangor Public has copies of) are collectable. However, generally it is easier to downsize journals than monographs.
b. ALA Midwinter – MSCS representatives
i. PAN session, January 25, 2013
Matthew reminded the Project Team that there is Print Archive Network (PAN) forum at ALA Midwinter from 9-12. Matthew, Sara and Clem will be attending the forum.
ii. OCLC sessions, January 25 -26, 2013
Matthew informed the Project Team that he and Sara will be attending OCLC’s shared print project session on Friday, January 25 from 3:30 to 4:30 in the OCLC Suite. Clem will also try to attend the session, if there is time after his meeting with Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
The OCLC representatives in attendance will be: Bill Carney, Lizanne Payne, Kathryn Harnish and Constance Malpas. In preparation for the meeting Bill asked Matthew and Sara to respond to the following questions (included are Matthew and Sara’s responses):
1. OCLC Question: OCLC recently announced support for registering Shared Print holdings in WorldCat based on the Print Archived Metadata Guidelines. Through this service, libraries can disclose shared print holdings using OCLC Connexion or batch load/LHRUS to add the holdings to WorldCat, and manage resource-sharing requests through WCRS and/or ILLiad. How closely does this service meet your shared print needs?
MSCS Response: The annual fee of $1,200 for the additional OCLC symbol for each ILLiad library is of course our biggest issue. Having read the summary from our Director’s meeting I think you are aware of the Director’s concerns. I would also add that part of the concern is that it is an annual, rather than one-off fee.
2. OCLC Question: OCLC will be looking at the feasibility of enhancing current
services across the platform in support of shared print. What are the
top three needs/functions that OCLC must have going forward to meet
the needs of your shared print project?
MSCS Response: Is there another (more economical) way to display that an item is part of a shared print project? We would also like to see the development of a shared print public interface which could be queried (and pull OCLC numbers) to allow users to search for and identify retention commitments.
3. OCLC Question: OCLC is interested in working with organizations that provide value to your library or group regarding shared print. What
groups/organizations should OCLC be reaching out to, and how should OCLC be working with them, e.g., access to WorldCat and holdings, access to OCLC services themselves, or other ideas?
MSCS Response: We would like you to consider working with the digital libraries such as the HathiTrust, Google Books and Internet Archive.
Matthew and Sara will again raise MSCS concerns with the satellite fee in-person at the session.
Matthew also reminded the Project Team that there are also two sessions for representatives from libraries involved in shared print projects. These are on Saturday, January 26th 8:30 to 9:30 and 3:30 to 4:30. Linda Lord Maine State Librarian is going to attend the afternoon session, but so far no one else from MSCS has agreed to attend. Places are limited, so Matthew wanted to give others the chance to go, but if no one else from MSCS can attend them he will go. Both James and Barbara said that they might be able to attend. Matthew will send them the details again.
Matthew and Sara will also be attending a joint OCLC & SCS session by Rick Lugg (SCS) and Kathryn Harnish (OCLC) on Saturday 26th from 1-2:30pm titled ‘OCLC Collection Analytics; Using Data to Drive Decisions’.
c. Potential Speaking Opportunities
i. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon May 18 – 21, 2013 – MSCS paper
Sara has submitted a proposal to The Acquisitions Institute at Timberline Lodge for the 2013 Timberline Conference. Matthew asked whether Sara knew when she would be notified of whether the proposal was successful. Sara responded that she did not know an exact date, but Timberline’s website said some time in the New Year.
ii. 2013 Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 27 – July 2, 2013 – SCS Session Update
Matthew informed the Project Team that he had contacted Rick Lugg (SCS) regarding whether MSCS could present at SCS’s proposed session at the 2013 ALA Annual Conference. Rick responded that the session would be on June 27th and that although it would be a different format to their Charleston session, they would still want to include MSCS.
Clem asked Matthew to confirm the date, because he was concerned if it was a pre-conference event it might clash with the PAN meeting.
iii. 2013 IFLA Conference, Singapore, 17 – 23 August, 2013 – MSCS paper
Matthew reported that he had submitted a proposal to the IFLA Acquisitions & Collections Development for a presentation and paper. Matthew will be notified whether, or not he was successful by February 28th, 2013.
d. WebWise Conference on Libraries and Museums in the Digital World, Baltimore, MD, March 6 – 8, 2013
IMLS have announced that the 2013 WebWise Conference will be held in Baltimore, MD, March 6 – 8, 2013. The IMLS grant requires that 2 project representatives attend the conference. The Project Team agreed that Matthew and Deb will attend from MSCS.
e. Advisory Board Visit Spring 2013 – Agree schedule
Matthew requested that the Project Team agree on the schedule for the MSCS Advisory Board visit in spring 2013.
The Project Team agreed the Advisory Board should attend a MSCS Directors Council meeting on May 23rd 2013.They should also present a 1hour session, either individually, or as a group on the morning of the Maine InfoNet Collection Summit. The theme of the Summit is E-Content and it will be hosted by the University of Maine, Orono on May 24th 2013. The Advisory Board would then depart on the afternoon/evening of May 24th.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. January 11, 2013, MSCS Technical Services Committee
Sara has organized a MSCS Technical Services Committee phone meeting for January 11th to plan for the data extracts required for SCS and HathiTrust.
Sara is willing to perform the extract on the library’s behalf, but she wants to inform them of what will be involved and identify any issues. SCS will also be on the call, to offer any advice, comment, and/or raise issues.
b. Jan 25-29, ALA 2013 Midwinter Meeting, Seattle, WA
See above.
c. Feb 13, Wednesday, 2-4pm, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library
Matthew suggested that this meeting might require rearranging, because it may clash with the SCS planning session (see above).
d. TBC Directors Council Meeting, Colby College Miller Library
Matthew reminded the Project Team that the MSCS Directors Council Meeting originally scheduled for March 7th has had to be rescheduled due to the WebWise Conference (see above).
Matthew has sent a Doodle Poll with suggested dates and times, which he will close at 5pm today (January 9th). It looks like Thursday 28th or, Friday 29th March from 1-3, was going to be the two equally most popular choices. Also the Miller Library Meeting Room appeared to be free for both of those dates and times. Therefore Matthew asked the Project Team whether they had a preference for either of the two dates. The Project Team chose Thursday March 28th, because the Friday is Good Friday.
Once the poll has been closed, Matthew will inform the Directors Council of the date and time of the meeting.