Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
June 12, 2013
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato (phoned in), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. Scenario one – agree on requested revisions & application of “Needs further examination”
Multiple copies & multi-volume sets issue
Matthew presented the MSCS Retention Scenario One as originally agreed at the April 8th Scenario Development meeting with Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) and the MSCS Collection Development Committee. Sara had added a page on the MSCS website outlining this scenario. The Project Team confirmed that this accurately reflected what was agreed.
At the May 23rd MSCS Directors Council meeting it was agreed that Scenario One “Commitment to Retain” Lists (1,076,188 titles/1,258,195 items) should be split into two parts:
• Titles with a single item record per bib record (about 91% of the titles and 78% of the items)
• Titles with multiple item records per bib record (about 9% of the titles and 22% of the items)
• Divide these further into multi-volume sets and multiple copies and add to “Needs further examination” group
Matthew asked the Project Team to consider what should be done with this “Needs further examination” group.
Matthew and Deb commented that Andy Breeding from SCS had mentioned that he can parcel out multi-volume sets. The Project Team and Sara agreed that she will request from SCS spreadsheet lists for titles with multiple item records per bib record. Sara will then analyze the list and look at the issues involved with identifying whether they are multi-volume sets, multiple copies, or as Clem described, a third ‘grey’ area where it is unclear what it is. Clem commented that that for multiple copies and multi-volume sets MSCS would just make a retention statement because retention is at the title level.
Zero circulations and available in HathiTrust & Internet Archive
Matthew commented that although MSCS are not going to dictate to libraries that they need to withdraw any titles, should the Project Team provide guidance for what partner libraries should do with items that have zero circulations and are available in the HathiTrust & Internet Archive? Or is the Project Team going to say this is a local decision?
The Project Team agreed that titles that are in the “Needs further review” category do need to be reviewed, but for any action to be taken on them some examples are required for those 213,425 titles that are in the HathiTrust (both Public Domain & In-Copyright), 45,816 titles that are in the Internet Archive and the 166,071 titles not available electronically. Clem commented that he thinks libraries would automatically commit to retaining In-Copyright titles, but Deb disagreed and thought it would be useful to see a manageable amount split by institution.
Clem commented that for SCS this will be the first time they have worked with libraries who have actually used the HathTrust overlap to make retention decisions.
Matthew asked what data elements will help the MSCS Collection Development Committee review these examples. The Project Team agreed that the examples should include basic bib and item data, possibly: Author, title, publisher, publication year and edition. Deb agreed to think about the fields/details/libraries/numbers would be needed in examples and will get back to Matthew with her ideas.
Clem commented that perhaps titles not available digitally could be just moved to the “Committed to retain” category. Also maybe for titles only available in the Internet Archive, MSCS will just say libraries won’t commit.
The Project Team recognized that the HathiTrust count discrepancies (see below) would need to be resolved before the request for examples was submitted to SCS. Once Matthew receives the examples, he will send them to the MSCS Collection Development Committee and set them a deadline to review by and arrange another meeting for group decisions.
Scenario one: Usage & HathiTrust Public Domain
Following the May 23rd MSCS meetings, Deb had circulated to the Project Team a proposal that if “any circulation or internal use” or “any reserve use” were the ONLY factors among criteria #1-6 for the commit to retain titles, and the titles are digitized in HathiTrust Public Domain, MSCS may want to treat in the “needs further examination” group, because some of these titles may not be things MSCS actually wants to add 15-year retention to. The total amount of titles that fall into this subset is about 40,000.
Matthew noted there are still issues with the reliability of HathiTrust data counts (see below). In order to make progress with disclosing retention commitments for Scenario One, Matthew had asked the Project Team to agree on removing ALL titles that are in the “Committed to retain” category only because of circ/reserve usage (regardless of whether they are digitized in HathiTrust). However, SCS analysis showed that by removing titles that were only in the Scenario One “committed to retain” set of 1+ million records due to circ/reserve usage, MSCS would only be making retention commitments on about 25% of the titles (about 250,000). Andy also mentioned that the splitting of buckets and more lists would add complexity and increase risk of introducing errors. As MSCS have one shot at this to get it right and also because it was close to today’s Project Team Matthew held off requesting the final Scenario One “Committed to retain” list from SCS until agreement could be reached at today’s meeting.
Deb noted that when the MSCS Collection Development Committee looked at the group of more widely held MSCS titles, attendees had discussed not committing to retain titles that have zero to low circulations and were available digitally, so she thought why would MSCS agree on this for more widely held titles, but not apply the same rule to titles that are only held by 1 or 2 partners?
Deb argued that less widely-held titles may be collectively less important to our shared library collections, because fewer libraries initially selected the title. Clem disagreed with this argument, he argued that it might just mean for the academics that only one of them is teaching the subject. So the title might be important for the individual library, even if it is not for the MSCS group.
Clem and Barbara argued that Scenario One had been agreed by the partner library representatives and so they were unwilling to go against their wishes and change the commitment criteria.
Based on a majority vote among the three MSCS Project PIs, the team agreed to leave the “Committed to Retain” category in Scenario One as it stood at the May 23rd meetings:
• Retain the copies if any circulation, reserve activity or internal use
• Retain material that falls into local protection categories (Specific Maine items) even if no circulation
• Retain Special Collections/Archives copies even if no circulation
• Retain unique in OCLC (only 0-9 copies in OCLC) even if no circulation
Scenario one: How many copies do we want to commit to retain?
In Scenario One, where titles are held by 1-2 partners only, MSCS simply agreed that if one library has it then they will commit to its retention and if two have it both will commit to its retention. MSCS libraries still have to consider which libraries would commit to retain the title if 3 or more libraries owned it.
Clem commented that commitments should be made at the title level and that deciding how many copies are retained is a local decision. A discussion then ensued regarding which copy (if there are multiple copies) would be assigned the retention commitment. So for example, is it random i.e. the first one?
Clem asked if there is a way for libraries to identify whether they are the one holder of the copy. James responded that you are already committing to retain the title so what does it matter. Sara asked what would happen if the copy is lost? Clem asked if there is a way of identifying in the MARC 583 Subfield the collective retention commitment. Sara responded that this could not be identified locally, but one could look in MaineCat and OCLC. James suggested that you could record in a note in 583 that the item was retained as part of MSCS Scenario One.
Clem asked how one would know if the library had lost the copy. Deb mentioned there are provisions for dealing with lost copies in the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative MOU. Clem asked operationally, if there was a way in the 583 one could show how the copy relates to the bigger project, so libraries would know who else was retaining that title. Clem asked Sara if there was some coding that could be done so this could be displayed in the local catalog. Sara responded that local catalogs can’t be the knowledge-base of the universe and that OCLC are working on making retention commitments searchable.
ii. Review widely held titles collection summary – agree on requested changes, use of circulation data and potential retention & withdrawal opportunities
SCS produced a targeted Group Collection Summary for the 1,064,333 title-holdings present in 3+ libraries. The summary should include all of the data elements in the full Group Collection Summary. The summary was sent to Matthew and Deb who had reviewed the summary before today’s meeting.
Matthew reported that before sending the summary to the Collection Development representatives he wanted to make sure the Project Team was happy with it.
As a starting place for discussion, Matthew outlined his and Deb’s suggestions for changes and also some questions they had:
• include counts for publication date/last added date before 2003 (as we are not analyzing titles after this date)
• include a pre-1923 publication count for public domain titles
• Remove other date group counts
• Helpful to see circulation data compared with availability in HathiTrust. So for example, of those titles that have 1 charge, what is the percentage that are also in the HathiTrust. Maybe add as a column on the Circulation tab of spreadsheet right before Bangor Public Library. Column title Hathi Public Domain.
• Ask where did the “Last circulation after 5/31/2009 (Within last four years)” come from? We think it may have been mentioned by Portland Public, but can you please clarify?
Matthew commented that at previous meetings, attendees had found SCS’s graphs and chart extremely useful for developing retention scenarios. So, he and Deb were also thinking ahead to future meetings and how the use of graphs and charts with different data and scenarios could help MSCS again:
• Generally, ask Rick to update the data in his and Andy’s slides particularly if MSCS representatives are going to be using these slides to develop future retention criteria and in reports and presentation they need to know that the data is still correct. For example, slide 27 was looked at a lot and mentioned in presentations. So if it’s not too much of an onerous task, Deb and Matthew were going to ask them to please update the data.
• It would useful for the next MSCS Collection Development meeting to see slide 58 which is currently for “circulating titles published and acquired before 2000” changed to “before 2003,” and extended to include 4-9 and 10+ circulations.
• Matthew and Deb would also like to see the numbers for those titles that have zero circulations in the last 10 years in addition to the zero circulations total column on slide 58. It might help to explain a potential scenario where this could be used, e.g. (0 circ last 10 yrs + total circ<4 + Hathi digitized IC or PD might NOT get a retention statement, or we might retain only 1, even if held by 6).
Matthew asked the Project Team to think about what will help MSCS make decisions for those more widely held titled.
Clem commented that that he doesn’t believe date related counts will be useful until MSCS gets to the nitty gritty of analyzing examples. Looking at OCLC WorldCat Counts in the U.S.A. perhaps anything less than 50 holdings MSCS libraries should retain two copies. But who would keep those copies still needs to be decided. For 200+ holdings MSCS could look at subjects and publication date.
Matthew commented that with 1 million commitments already made he thinks MSCS should be less concerned about making mass commitments and concentrate more on looking at sections of the collection where more difficult collections analysis decisions need to be made.
Mathew asked whether there should be separate spreadsheets for each of the data elements comparisons. Deb responded that the different factors should be cross referenced and that the MSCS Collection Development representatives should be asked for their opinions. Deb agreed to produce examples which can be sent to the Collection Development Committee with the summary. The Project Team agreed that a deadline should be set and that Matthew will then arrange another meeting to develop additional retention scenarios.
iii. Conditions of copies – Bob Kieft’s suggestion
Bob Kieft had sent MSCS Project Principle Investigators some observations and suggestions for MSCS. One of the suggestions was for those titles that are more widely held, one or more MSCS libraries could sample a group of “committed to retain” titles, review actual condition of the copies, and make 583 notes in the catalog.
Sara reported that the condition of copies (make sure you are retaining best copy) had been brought up at the Timberline Conference. Matthew responded that Portland Public Library (PPL) representatives had mentioned the importance of retaining the best copy at MSCS meetings.
The Project Team agreed that maybe Sarah Campbell would be interested in organizing some sampling at PPL. The Project Team discussed that maybe checking the condition would be useful for multiple copies to decide which one to retain. This is an example of future areas of work that come out of MSCS that could be supported by grant funding. Deb commented that student workers would be ideal for this sort of checking.
Clem commented that if libraries want to check conditions, they can and record it in the 583. MSCS can recommend to the libraries what to include in the 583, but not dictate they have to check on the conditions. Matthew and Sara agreed to discuss the guidance that MSCS will provide using guidance from the OCLC Pilot Project.
Sara reported that she had made a MSCS web page on 583 condition statements, based on previous discussions with the MSCS Technical Services Committee.
iv. HathiTrust data discrepancies update
Sara reported that the discrepancy issue between the counts for MSCS items in the HathiTrust from the HathiTrust itself and SCS were still ongoing. The data sent to HathiTrust and SCS was different because serials were not included for SCS and the pulls were done at different times, so one would expect small discrepancies. However, the differences were huge!
Sara has been investigating this issue with Jeremy York (HathiTrust) and Eric Redman (SCS). She is currently awaiting from HathiTrust a report of OCLC numbers from MSCS that matched in HathiTrust. But frustratingly, the person who managed the HathiTrust print holdings database left recently so they are a bit short of staff. The report is in the queue and HathiTrust hope to provide Sara with it later this week.
Sara commented that she can replicate what SCS did, but she can’t get the numbers to match. She also mentioned that she saw titles disappear from HathiTrust’s public domain lists. Sara is not sure she would recommend disposing of the last print copy of a title based on the fact that it is available in the HathiTrust.
Matthew commented that MSCS is the victim of being the first project to use SCS’s HathiTrust overlap data to make retention decisions. The Project Team agreed that the discrepancy issue is concerning.
v. Reliability of Internet Archive copies
In previous discussions, different MSCS Collection Development representatives have said they would rely on a HathiTrust copy but not an Internet Archive copy as a digital surrogate. However, MSCS have never really substantiated why this is the case, which it needs to do for reporting purposes.
Matthew reported that he had contacted the Advisory Board and got their opinion. Bob Kieft pointed that while Center for Research Libraries have completed audits of Portico and HathiTrust, they have not done one of the Internet Archive. There is also the issue of it being the ‘brainchild’ of one man (Brewster Kahle) and what happens if for whatever reason he is no longer involved. Or there is some of kind of server issue.
Constance Malpas agreed with Bob and suggested MSCS looks at work the HathiTrust has done regarding quality of scans. Constance also mentioned that the IA effort is being duplicated by HathiTrust and others. However, Mathew commented that MSCS knows from SCS data that IA have copies of some MSCS titles which HathiTrust does not
Matthew asked the Project Team whether they had anything else to add to Bob and Constance’s responses.
Clem responded that, based on time spent with IA founder Brewster Kahle, he has no doubt regarding his interest and Clem thinks the data is secure. Instead, the issue for Clem is the inconsistency in formats and that, unlike the HathTrust, it is not possible to compare apples with apples. But, he thinks it would be useful to add links in MaineCat to Internet Archive items, but perhaps not rely on their copies as digital surrogates.
James commented that he thought there was a project that had been submitting materials to IA which perhaps might be more reliable. Sara responded that she thought Lyrasis had been working on an IA project. While James was not sure on the project name, he suggested that perhaps IA could be relied upon for certain sub-collections. Matthew commented that Bob had mentioned that Occidental College had been adding material to IA so had a certain level of confidence in it. Deb responded that anyone could add material.
Matthew commented all these observations would be good for reporting purposes.
vi. OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis tool proposal – agree on changes
The Project Team still needed to agree on the proposal from OCLC for deferred (late 2013/early 2014) access to their analytics collections analysis tool.
A few required changes have already been identified including to the OCLC Symbols listed. Matthew asked the Project Team if they had anymore requested changes before he contacts Meghan Hopkins. The Project Team were confused why libraries not part of MSCS were included in the list of OCLC symbols. Matthew responded that he was not sure where Meghan had got her list from, but he will make sure only the correct symbols are included. Deb asked Matthew to make sure the OCLC Shared Print Symbols are included.
Matthew set the Project Team a deadline of Friday June 14th to report back on any changes they want to be made to the proposal.
vii. Journals collections analysis work
At the previous Project Team meeting there had been a discussion about using grant funds to pay for Sara to look at whether her collections analysis database could be adapted for analyzing journals. Matthew reported that he had asked Sara about the work and she was happy to work on this, but had some questions which she needed answering first by the Collection Development Committee.
Matthew commented that as there had been a lot to discuss with analyzing monographs, he had not included it on the agenda for the Advisory Board visit meetings. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they wanted to delay this work until issues with the monographs were a bit clearer. Clem responded that this work should not be delayed and with only 11 months of the project remaining it was vital that progress was made.
The Project Team agreed that a decision needs to be made on the scope of this work. Barbara asked which periodicals it will involve and whether in addition to journals it will also include serials. Sara commented that serials were not included as part of the SCS analysis. But Deb responded that because of variances in cataloguing practices many serials probably were included.
Deb commented that she is willing to dispose of all hard copies of JSTOR titles, but perhaps not Elsevier, and that in any case UMaine faculty are still uncomfortable with discards. Deb recommended that Matthew organizes a phone conference with the MSCS Collection Development Committee and Sara to discuss the analysis of journals.
b. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. OCLC WorldCat – batch loading 583 & shared print symbol
Sara reported that all MSCS libraries should have their OCLC Shared Print Symbol and associated logins. She has sent a message to the MSCS Technical Services Committee members letting them know that is ready, but so far has not received any responses.
Sara has also submitted, on behalf of the MSCS libraries, an OCLC batch loading request to update OCLC Local Holding Retention information for retention commitments. Matthew commented that they had submitted this now to avoid delays seen during the reclamation process. Sara commented that she will work with the libraries to make sure the process goes smoothly and will produce guidance for the libraries, which will be posted on the MSCS website. She thinks that once it is setup it will be a straightforward process. To avoid delays and added complexity, condition statements will not be included in this round of commitments.
Clem asked Sara how the process for loading of retention information into the local millennium catalogs will work. Sara responded that they are going to use instructions provided by Sharon Saunders (Bates College) to transfer a list of barcodes (provided by SCS) into an item list. Global Update can be used to include LHRs Marc Fields – include 561, 583 and 852. These should be ‘y’ tagged fields placed in the item records.
Barbara commented that she had spoken to Judie Leighton (Bangor Public’s MSCS Technical Services Committee representative) about how it relates to the existing OCLC symbol. Matthew responded that Sara had asked the Technical Services Committee members to ensure that they have BOTH the main symbol AND the Shared Print symbol on materials designated as part of the shared print collection. Materials will be requestable, as always, via the main symbol. The Shared Print symbol is currently set to be a non-supplier. This is due to the annual cost associated with using the Shared Print symbol for ILL. So Sara asked them NOT to change the “OCLC Supplier” status on these symbols, as that will incur a fee.
Deb commented to Sara that in her email to the MSCS Technical Services Committee, her choice of wording might be misinterpreted as libraries have a choice regarding whether their new shared print symbol is displayed as a link in OCLC WorldCat. Deb thought that Sara needed to make it clear to them that this was not a choice. The Project Team agreed with Deb that the MSCS need to be consistent and have it displayed as a link. Matthew commented that Sara can make it clear to the Technical Services Committee that the decision had been approved by the MSCS Project Team.
ii. MaineCat – communications with III
James and Clem reported that the discussions with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III) had been successful and that III had agreed to fix the issues with the display and transfer of 583 to MaineCat. Clem commented that he believes that III will get this done within the next 12 months, hopefully by Christmas. He noted that fixing it would give III a good competitive advantage beyond just Maine–for other shared print projects.
Matthew asked James how MSCS will find out when it has been fixed. James responded that in the past, III had put out patches but not informed Maine InfoNet they had done it. It has now been made clear to III that they need to inform Maine InfoNet whenever a patch is ready.
The Project Team agreed that this was promising news and that hopefully progress can be made within the grant period.
The Project Team agreed that Sara will still go ahead with the short-term solution to transfer and display which is to use the OCLC WorldCat API and JavaScript to perform a check of OCLC and display when an item is in shared print.
iii. Local catalogs
At previous Project Team meetings Sara had commented that because of variances in how it is displayed in the different catalogs used by MSCS libraries, it might be better to let the institutions/groups/consortium decide the how (webpub.def or OPAC message) and where themselves as long as they use common language provided by Sara and the MSCS Project Team. Matthew asked the Project Team to confirm that they approved allowing libraries the freedom to decide how the retention statement will be displayed.
Clem responded that the display is going to the wide world and needs to be consistent, so people know where to look. Sara clarified that the issue is because of the different interfaces used by the MSCS libraries, so although it is possible to be consistent in the INN-Reach systems, it is not across different interfaces. Sara commented that they will have the same language and link.
The Project Team agreed that the display should be as consistent as possible, but that realistically there will be some variances because of the different interfaces used by MSCS libraries.
c. HathiTrust
i. Implementation investigations – SOLAR load request update, ILL issues, links in catalogs & POD request process
SOLAR load request update
James reported that he had mentioned that the MSCS Project Team had proposed loading HathiTrust records into SOLAR at the June 5th Maine InfoNet Board of Directors Retreat. However, he decided that this was not something that needed to be approved by the Board before proceeding with. Clem agreed that this was not something that James needed to ask approval for. Therefore MSCS can move ahead with its plans to load HathiTrust records into SOLAR.
ILL issues & links in catalogs
In March, following discussions regarding the ability for MSCS libraries to Inter Library Loan (ILL) HathiTrust items, Matthew was still unsure whether this was possible, so he contacted Jeremy York who responded that it was up to each institution to decide.
Matthew reported that after Jeremy had heard during his visit more about what MSCS had in mind for ILL, he went back and checked whether HathiTrust partners could ILL Google-digitalized copies between themselves. Jeremy confirmed that Google allows ILL of PD materials between HathiTrust partners, but not to non-partners. So, whether libraries can ILL depends on whether the volume was digitized by Google. Jeremy commented that if it was not digitalized by Google there would be no need for ILL, as it would be freely downloadable.
The Project Team agreed with Deb that there could be catalog links in records to Google Books where patrons can go to download a PD title which means they would not need to ILL a copy. Matthew commented that Jeremy was also looking into other access options.
The Project Team agreed that there should be a link to the HathiTrust copy, Print On Demand link, and E-book-On-Demand for downloading a copy.
POD request process
Sara has been discussing with Jeremy Print On Demand links used by HathiTrust partners (University of Michigan and University of California) to Amazon and in-house Espresso Book Machines.
Matthew asked the Project Team to think about the following:
• Generally what it is MSCS actually wants to achieve and how they see the request processes working?
• Could there be a “Get this book” for library, Amazon, and POD?
• Who can request a POD copy?
• What can be requested?
• How are requests processed?
• Who pays for the copy?
• Who keeps the copy?
Clem responded that MSCS needs to develop a sustainable business model which includes who pays for it–either libraries or individuals.
The Project Team discussed catalog links to Amazon where users could buy a copy of the title. In most cases, it would be cheaper for them to buy a copy from Amazon than purchase a printed in-house POD copy. Clem and Deb agreed that there would not likely be a huge demand for POD and that pointing users towards Amazon is both simpler for libraries and the user.
Deb suggested that there be MaineCat link options for: read, download, ILL, print, and buy a copy.
A discussion then ensued regarding using GIST for processing ILL requests in ILLiad. James reported that he and Albie at Maine InfoNet had been working on an ILLiad request form for HathiTrust items.
The Project Team agreed that Print On Demand should only be for Maine library patrons.
The Project Team agreed that Sara should produce an example of EOD and POD links that can be presented and discussed at the next MSCS Directors Council.
ii. Consortial membership & Shibboleth updates – MSCC contract & binding issues, checklist and UMaine Shibboleth update
Contract
Following the MSCS Directors Council agreement to become consortial HathiTrust partners, they agreed that the name of the consortium would be the ‘Maine Shared Collections Cooperative’ (MSCC).
Jeremy sent Matthew a contract for the consortium to sign and agree to become a partner member. After reviewing the contract Matthew had some questions regarding how to make the contract binding for all of the MSCC libraries, especially if only one library signed it (which there was only currently space for). Clem and James agreed to meet last week to discuss the issue. However, since then, Jeremy reported to Matthew that HathiTrust allows and prefers multiple signers.
James commented that because HathiTrust allows multiple signers he does not see binding as still an issue. Matthew responded that there was still the issue of which MSCC member receives the annual bill for membership. Matthew had thought that perhaps Maine InfoNet could act as the fiscal agent, but was aware that previously James had mentioned this might be issue because amounts involved might exceed those allowed by their legal and financial status.
James responded that it was only going to be a matter of time before the legal and financial status of Maine InfoNet would need to be looked at, so the HathiTrust partnership would be a good chance for the Board to discuss this issue. James commented that equivalent organizations in other parts of the country and charged a fee for handling such transactions.
Matthew commented that as Maine InfoNet would not be contributing to the costs of HathiTrust membership, perhaps it might be better handled by one of the MSCC library members. Deb responded that if it wasn’t Maine InfoNet it should be one of the private academic partners and most likely Colby who should act as the fiscal agent for MSCC. Deb argued that it shouldn’t be the University of Maine, which has been responsible for administering MSCS, and not the public libraries who would not be able to cover the costs.
Matthew commented that voting on HathiTrust proposals would also need to be coordinated across the consortium.
The Project Team agreed that the HathiTrust contract should be signed by all MSCC partners. There does not need to be a separate agreement amongst the MSCC libraries as the decision to become a consortium will simply be recorded in the minutes of the MSCS Directors Council meeting.
James will send an email to the Maine InfoNet Board informing them of the decision that Maine InfoNet will be the fiscal agent for the MSCC HathiTrust consortium.
Checklist
Jeremy also sent Matthew a link to their new partnership checklist to show the process MSCS needs to go through to become partners.
Jeremy had also told Matthew that it is likely that the cost of membership will be a couple of hundred dollars less than quoted in March because since then new partners have joined the HathiTrust.
UMaine Shibboleth Update
Joyce Rumery received a note from Dick Thompson (University of Maine Chief Information Office) that the go-live date for Shibboleth is June 24th. UMaine contracted with the same company that Colby used to install Shibboleth. The Project Team were delighted with this progress.
Gene Wiemers (Bates) sent a message to Project Team members and IT representatives at Colby, Bates & Bowdoin regarding a single point of contact for the authorization of IP addresses and initial contact. Gene also mentioned that Jeremy had said HathiTrust would eventually have to work individually with consortial members to make sure Shibboleth works properly. Gene wanted to know if they had ideas regarding how MSCC can gather the information, so that the libraries are all in synch from the HathiTrust’s point of view.
Clem commented that HathiTrust require a contact for Shibboleth. James responded that he thought Gene was implying that Bates would be the contact. James went on to say that he thinks that MSCS should wait until Shibboleth works and look at what the single point of contact entails and the information they need for Shibboleth. James agreed to speak to Jeremy about their requirements and Matthew will check the HathiTrust checklist and their website to see if there is any information which might help James consider the implications.
d. Budget
i. Partner contributions towards SCS costs – send out additional bills
The Maine State Library’s payment is the only one Matthew has not received for SCS, but he has spoken to Linda Lord and is expecting it soon. Matthew will send invoices to Colby and Bates after July 1st.
ii. Travel & meal claims & Advisory Board/Jeremy York visit bills
Constance Malpas’ travel claim is the only claim and invoice that has not been processed for the Advisory Board/Jeremy York visit. Matthew has sent a reminder to Constance, who is the only Board Member unable to receive a stipend.
e. MOU
i. Update on submission of signed copies
Following the May 23rd MSCS Directors Council meeting, Matthew sent a ‘clean’ version of the MOU (without mention of draft or track changes) with a place for signatures added. So far, Matthew has received signed copies from Bates and UMaine. Clem reported that he hoped to have Colby’s copy signed and ready for Matthew on Friday (June 14th). Barbara reported that Bangor Public’s copy should be signed in early September.
Matthew commented that depending on the frequency of when Boards and Provosts meet it may take a while for all of the libraries to have them signed.
At the May 23rd Directors Council it had been agreed that at least one MOU would need to be signed before libraries could disclose commitments. Matthew confirmed with the Project Team that now there were two signed copies there was nothing to delay disclosing the retention commitments. The Project Team agreed commitments could be disclosed, especially as one of the signed copies was from Gene at Bates who had been the one to ask for a MOU signed by at least one institution before retention commitments were disclosed.
The Project Team approved Matthew’s request to publish a blank copy of the MOU on the MSCS website as a way of publicizing the work of MSCS.
f. MSCS planning & legacy
i. Bob Kieft’s suggestions – Teaching document for shared print, agenda for future activity & national invitation event
g. Website maintenance
i. Hosting, WordPress & content beyond MSCS
Unfortunately, due to time constraints these items were not discussed.
h. Marketing
i. UMaine promotion
Gretchen Gfeller who is responsible for the Fogler website and promotion and who has been adding Facebook posts on MSCS that Matthew sends her, has asked Matthew to produce a news releases for non-library folks complete with some links about MSCS for Margaret Nagle, Director of Public Relations for the University of Maine.
ii. Collections Management – call for articles proposal
Deb won’t be able to meet the June 30th deadline for submitting article proposals for the Collections Management publication.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. Advisory Board & Jeremy York visit – feedback
The Project Team agreed that the visit was a success. Clem commented that MSCS representatives had received positive feedback on their groundbreaking work.
b. July 10 Project Team Meeting – Potential Sara visit
Sara Amato is visiting New England in July and is able to attend the July 10th Project Team meeting. The Project Team agreed that rather than making Sara travel to Orono the next Project Team meeting will be down at Colby in the Miller Library Conference Room. The Project Team will meet Sara for lunch before the meeting.
c. MSCS presentations
i. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon, May 19th, 2013 – Sara feedback
Sara will forward the questions she and Randy Dykhuis (Michigan Shared Print Initiative) received after their presentations at the Acquisitions Institute to the Project Team. The questions were
• Involvement of faculty in de-accessioning?
• Condition of copies (make sure you are retaining best copy)
• Print as artifact (dust jackets, bindings), Edition variants, e.g. forwards
• Disposition of de-accessioned materials (Randy: Better World Books); central storage location?
• Allocation of retention materials between institutions – how were those decisions made
• Redistribution of materials to those with space (Randy: they wanted to, but it was too hard to accomplish in the real world.)
ii. Library Journal Data Series Webcast, June 6th, 2013 – Matthew feedback
Matthew was a panel member on the June 6th Library Journal Data Series titled “Data-Driven Libraries Part 1: Analyzing Data to Manage Print Collections”.
Matthew reported that there were some technical difficulties regarding the volume of his phone. The other two presenters were discussing products for analyzing individual collections, which judging by the questions, Matthew felt is what most attendees wanted to hear about, rather than shared print initiatives like MSCS.
There were over 1,000 people registered to attend so it was good marketing for MSCS. Matthew reported that the traffic on the MSCS website increased on the day as well.
d. Planned MSCS presentations, papers & reports
i. ALA Annual ALCTS Pre-conference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013
Matthew spoke with Rick Lugg (SCS) and Debra Bucher (Connect NY) who is also presenting on “Communication, Project Management & Decision-Making” to review what they are presenting. Sara had a similar meeting with Andy Breeding (SCS).
Matthew, Clem and Sara gave a brief description of what they will be likely covering in their presentations so as to avoid repetition. Clem will be covering “Origins of a shared print Project”, Matthew will be covering “Communication, Project Management & Decision-Making” and Sara will be covering “Data Wrangling for Shared Print Monographs”.
ii. Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013 – Clem presentation & MSCS update report
Clem will also be presenting at the Print Archive Network session with Margaret Maes (LIPA/NELLCO), Ken Peterson (Harvard) and Jay Schafer (UMass Amherst).
Matthew is holding off on publishing the MSCS PAN update report until he knows the total number of commitments MSCS will be making in Scenario One.
iii. IFLA Conference, Singapore, August 19th, 2013 – MSCS presentation slides
Matthew and Clem met prior to today’s meeting to discuss the slides for their IFLA presentation which, according to the IFLA website, need to be submitted by June 30th.
iv. Charleston Conference – MSCS paper update
Deb will submit a proposal with MSCS Collection Development representative Becky Albitz (Bates College) to the Charleston Conference for consideration for their 45 minute sessions.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. June 27th, ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago
b. June 28th, Print Archive Network, Chicago
c. July 10, Project Team Meeting, Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
d. August 4, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library
e. August 30, Directors Council Meeting, Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room