Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
March 12, 2014
Fogler Library Conference Room
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins, Sara Amato (called in)
Absentees: Barbara McDade
1. Project Updates
a. HathiTrust/Google Books & POD
i. Finding new home & merging records
Finding new home
James reported that creating a URSUS ‘branch’ for the E-Book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand records to move to once Solar is decommissioned still appears to be the best option; especially as they are likely to get the most use there. URSUS libraries could choose whether or not they include the records in their scope. There is no definitive date of de-commission for Solar, but James expects the records could be moved to URSUS at the end of July.
James agreed to speak to Joyce Rumery (Dean of UMaine Libraries) about bringing up the possibility of the records moving to URSUS at the next URSUS Directors’ meeting, so the approval process can begin now. This will hopefully allow Sara to complete the reload in the grant period without delay.
Merging records
At the last Project Team meeting the Team had agreed that the merging of E-Book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand MaineCat records with physical items records in MaineCat was a positive occurrence that should be repeated for all records, not just the selection that had inadvertently merged in the first load. Matthew asked Sara whether there were any potential negative side effects of the merger.
Sara reported that records merging shouldn’t be an issue as when the records are reloaded she could change the OCLC number (which is used to match) to have a prefix ‘hathi’ so that they wouldn’t overlay any existing records in Solar (which had been the concern originally).
James explained how the records match and attach in URSUS in the first place and then there is a possibility to merge in MaineCat.
The Project Team agreed that Sara should not reload the records into Solar again, but instead wait until they need to be reloaded to their new home–once Solar is de-commissioned.
ii. Figures for EOD/POD hits
Matthew presented current figures from Google Analytics for clicks to the E-Book-On-Demand and Print-On-Demand records in MaineCat.
Matthew commented that after peaking in late January/early February the clicks have tapered off. Matthew spoke to Tim Pellett (Maine InfoNet) and it’s currently not possible in the MaineCat Analytics account to compare clicks to HathiTrust records with other bib records in MaineCat.
It’s interesting that clicks on the POD request form don’t always result in a POD request; perhaps because they searched MaineCat and found a physical copy, or were just curious about the form.
iii. POD requests & survey responses update
Requests
There have been approx. 25 POD requests so far, but there is currently a lull in the amounts received–none in over a week. And the past five requests were all from the same requester. Matthew submitted a test request which Greg Curtis (UMaine ILL) received, but Deb didn’t. A discussion then ensured regarding potential causes of Deb not receiving the messages.
Note: After further investigations since the meeting it appears that Greg also didn’t receive the test requests. Sara and Maine InfoNet are looking into the issue.
Matthew sent a message on MELIBS about the volume of requests received so far and included a link to the gallery of POD jobs.
The printing is taking seven days or more, with UMaine Printing Services bundling them rather than sending them to Matthew one at a time. Matthew still has to rely on estimates for printing costs because MSCS have only been billed for one book–$27.60. Using $27 per book as an average cost MSCS have spent just under $700 on printing and about $40 for postage. Matthew commented that MSCS will need to bear in mind the slow billing process when it gets close to exhausting grant funds, so MSCS does not exceed the amount allocated.
Survey
Matthew sent out the MSCS survey to the POD requesters at the beginning of the month and received some interesting responses:
● 80% of the requesters (8 of the 10 survey respondents) found the option by searching in MaineCat. The other two were pointed to it by library staff.
● Nearly 90% of the requesters completed the request form because they preferred to read books in print rather than relying on e-copies. One requester was curious about what would happen if they requested the book.
● The recreational reading vs. academic reading split was 60/40
● The comments suggest that requesters were pleasantly surprised about the quality of the book. But in the future Matthew will need to work with Printing Services to ensure the font size is readable.
● 80% of requesters would request a library print copy via MaineCat or Interlibrary Loan from their local library if the service wasn’t free. 20% would use digital copies and 20% would buy from an online seller.
Matthew commented that the responses to this question are the most interesting and suggest, as expected, that if there were fees, patrons would prefer to request physical copies.
● 70% of the responders would not pay extra for a color copy.
Matthew commented that requesters appear to be surprised that the POD book actually arrived, they get to keep it, and that it’s currently free.
iv. POD business model options
Clem commented that the business model option for MSCS might be to allow a commercial vendor to take over the POD service. A discussion then ensued regarding potential POD vendors including Amazon and Hewlett Packard that other HathiTrust partners are using. Matthew reported that he had checked with Sara and it’s not possible to do as Deb asked at the Directors’ meeting and filter the EOD/POD records so only those without links to commercial vendors in the Google or HathiTrust view of the item had the POD request form in the record, because the HathiTrust API doesn’t have that information.
Matthew reported that Joyce Rumery has spoken with the head of the University Bookstore (Richard Young) and they are ready and willing to handle the POD process at cost (no profit). So the requests could be routed to them instead of Fogler, with the requester paying the costs. Deb commented that the Bookstore would also need to be able to download and print HathiTrust member login items. James responded that this shouldn’t be a problem. Deb felt that there might still be situations where librarians would need to be involved in the request process should Bookstore staff run into issues, such as those encountered with a request for a serial MSCS received. Matthew responded that the Bookstore could be provided with guidance to deal with these issues. Also, the fact that a requester would be paying for the book instead of MSCS (or a library) would mean that there wouldn’t need to be too many rules regarding what could be requested–other than the item need to be in the public domain.
Matthew commented that if it appears that the Bookstore isn’t a good fit for the service, then at least MSCS have narrowed down the available options. Clem commented that the POD service might not be sustainable; if so, one option may be to change the wording in the EOD/POD records to say ‘download or purchase in Google Books,’ since most views in Google Books include a link to a commercial vendor where the item is available for purchase.
The Project Team agreed that Matthew and Deb should meet with Richard Young to discuss the POD service.
Clem commented that if POD in the future required a financial transaction, then this would be a first of its kind in MaineCat and so having the link in there would need to be approved by the Maine InfoNet Board and the URSUS Directors if the records were moved there (see above).
v. HathiTrust “Maine Collection” is live
The “Maine Collection” in the HathiTrust is now live. Matthew sent a message on MELIBS and tweeted about it, which resulted in some re-tweets and positive comments. Deb reported that she had shown the collection to Richard Hollinger (head of Fogler Library’s Special Collections Department) who was delighted with the collection
Jeremy York (HathiTrust) informed MSCS that HathiTrust can transfer ownership to Deb, so she can add/remove items on a one-off basis (and presumably add a description which is still missing), but any bulk updates would need be done through HathiTrust in order to ensure that they aren’t unintentionally removed/added back.
vi. Membership update – UMaine’s progress
James reported that the testing of UMaine’s Shibboleth connection is complete. Matthew commented that HathiTrust’s UMaine checklist still showed testing was in progress.
Deb agreed to contact Jeremy York about approving UMaine’s membership.
Matthew reported that Joyce was happy for UMaine to use HathiTrust’s standard press release for announcing the news of them becoming a member. Clem reported that Colby College have not released a press release because the College has a policy of not releasing them.
b. Budget
i. Budget vs. actual spending update
Matthew presented an updated version of the spending document he had presented at previous MSCS meetings, using the latest figures in the UMaine financial system. The balance MSCS has remaining in grant funds (after known expenditure has been taken out) has risen since Matthew last presented the figures. The reason for this is that during the gap between the previous Program Manager’s departure and Matthew’s start date, the full compensation amount for the role was not taken out, so essentially one month’s compensation never got expended. Matthew had previously allocated the full three months rather than two to avoid the danger of overspend, especially as the benefits and F&A rates UMaine charge can increase, This leaves MSCS with $7,775.37 currently unallocated.
The Project Team agreed that because MSCS has one year to spend the $7,775.37 amount having remaining funds is not an issue.
There is $29,630 still allocated for Sara’s role. Matthew spoke with Sara about this prior to the meeting and if she bills for 70 hours per month like she did for February (which Matthew received the invoice for today) the funds would last until July 2014. Sara commented that although 70 hours is less than she is currently averaging, as current grant activities wind down, there will be fewer hours to bill. Matthew asked Sara to produce a ‘to do list’ with estimated hours, so MSCS can make contingency plans should extra funds be required (possibly from the $7,775.37 balance). Matthew asked James whether Maine InfoNet would be willing and able to provide funds to pay Sara for MSCS-related work required in MaineCat such as the HathiTrust records reload. James responded that he was not comfortable with using Maine InfoNet funds for this type of work.
In other MSCS spending areas:
● $299 was paid in February to RainStorm for the MSCS website’s yearly plan. Matthew will ask RainStorm to add James to their contact list for MSCS, so he can communicate with them regarding the future of the website.
The Project Team agreed that the MSCS website will remain live post-grant and transition into the website for the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative. MSCS’s agreement with RainStorm is for three years of website maintenance, once this expires (January 2015) Maine InfoNet will take over responsibility for any WordPress updates required.
● $666.80 went out for the travel claims reimbursements for partner libraries
● Matthew has submitted a request to pay the Advisory Board their Year 3 stipends which will come to $1,000.
● Matthew has asked Sara to query OCLC batch loading services when MSCS are likely to be billed the $2,840 for that process.
● The only out of state travel MSCS have planned is for the 2014 ALA Annual Conference which will come out in July 2014. Deb commented that flight costs to Las Vegas are high. Matthew responded that he has budgeted $4,729 for remaining ALA costs (F&A applied) which he thought would be sufficient. $2,900 has been budgeted for ALA costs where F&A isn’t applied (room and av hire).
● The slow billing process for POD (see above) is why currently there is only one payment for this showing, plus two months of postage.
c. Ongoing MSCS activities
i. Reversing CTR criteria & procedure
One of the items discussed at the February 27th MSCS Collection Development meeting was producing a procedure for when a CTR could be reversed. At that meeting Deb presented a draft set of criteria for reversals, based on missing or damaged books she’d recently dealt with. Matthew has asked the Committee to review the criteria and report any edits they want made. Matthew commented that so far everyone seemed OK with the current criteria, but some Committee members felt that the procedure should also include criteria that can be used regardless of physical condition; particularly outdated and superseded titles.
Clem commented that the criteria will need to be fleshed out a bit more if it is to be used for more than missing or damaged items, because there is a danger that the procedure could be used to make mass reversals that would undo the work of MSCS and negatively affect the stability of a CTR. Clem went on to suggest that if libraries do weed CTR titles, the MSCC Collections & Operations Committee needs to develop a procedure for transferring weeded CTR items to another MSCC to retain. Matthew commented that the MSCC MOU already includes the following “If a Collection Holder is no longer able to retain the materials, the library may offer the materials to another library for retention.” Deb commented that another MSCC library might not be willing or able to ingest the weeded items.
Matthew and Deb will use the criteria to produce a reversal procedure to present at the next Committee meeting in April. New MSCC members will be made aware of this procedure when they join the Cooperative as a caveat to the Commitments. The MOU already includes the following: “Libraries are expected to follow their usual workflows and procedures for identifying, repairing, and replacing retained materials.”
ii. Transferring CTR items from circulating areas to special collections/archives
Matthew went back to the original grant application to see if there was anything MSCS said it would do that it still hadn’t. The only activity that fell into this category was preservation; which in the MSCS application said “partner libraries will develop a stewardship/preservation model for materials that are unique and/or rare and should be kept indefinitely in print format.” MSCS have made the retention commitments, but haven’t looked at any methods to ensure these titles are preserved.
Matthew discussed with the MSCS Collection Development Committee at their February 27th meeting an activity that could assist with preservation which is looking at situations where there are items of ‘rare’ title-sets (0-9 OCLC holdings, edition specific) which were tagged as ‘Circulating’ by SCS, with the goal of identifying items that might need to be transferred to special collections. The Committee agreed that they could use the spreadsheets created by Sara that included items that were in this category to identify items that could be considered for transfer to special collections, but they asked her to also remove state documents as they wouldn’t want to transfer these. Sara did this filtering and sent out a revised set of lists which contains relatively few titles to review:
● Bangor Public Library: 577
● Bangor Theological Seminary: 18
● Bates College: 283
● Bowdoin College: 614
● Colby College: 72
● Maine State Library: 1478
● Portland Public Library: 304
● UMaine: 498
● USM: 210
● All: 4054
Deb reported that she had reviewed UMaine’s titles and reduced it further to around 100 to review only the items in circulating stacks. Of these 100 or so, most were stacks copies where they also have a Library Use Only copy in Spec Coll. They ended up searching for only 17 titles, most of which will probably be relocated to Special Collections. 2 had wrong location codes, and 3 could not be found. So after this work there were only 11 items that Deb would consider moving to special collections from circulating areas.
Clem reported that he had asked Colby’s head of special collections to look at Colby’s list to identify any items that should be transferred to her department.
Matthew has asked the Collection Development Committee to report back their initial findings at their next meeting in April. Matthew commented that some libraries probably won’t get to any physical moving until the summer or beyond, but at least MSCS can report that those libraries plan to do the work as part of grant activities and some like UMaine will complete the transfer in the grant period. Matthew will also be sending out lists for titles in Step 1 once the Step 2 reviews have been reviewed. Sara reported that the number of titles in this category in Step 1 will be a lot larger (around 50,000).
iii. Digitization of ‘rare’ titles
The other preservation activity discussed at the February 27th Collection Development Committee meeting was digitizing CTR titles that are public domain (1930) and aren’t available digitally in the HathiTrust and Internet Archive. The Collection Development Committee agreed that in principle this was work their institutions were interested in being involved with. As such they were provide with lists of titles that fell into this category and the lists included OCLC holdings numbers, so they can be filtered based on holding levels. Matthew commented that it would seem to make the most sense to concentrate digitization efforts on ‘rare’ titles (however MSCS chooses to define that). The Committee agreed it made sense to coordinate the digitization work so as not to duplicate efforts.
Clem commented that digitization does not necessarily need to be part of the MSCS preservation strategy. Clem went on that many of the rare’ titles will be Maine related and so there might be more copies in Maine than is shown in OCLC as most libraries in Maine are not OCLC members. OCLC holding levels in Maine is a false hit, a fact that MSCS should include in its report to IMLS.
Matthew asked the Committee to review their list of titles that fell into this category and have some initial thoughts to discuss at the April meeting. The totals for titles in this category:
● Bangor Public Library: 1698
● Bangor Theological Seminary: 45
● Bates College: 947
● Bowdoin College: 2005
● Colby College: 1691
● Maine State Library: 1778
● Portland Public Library: 1553
● UMaine: 2953
● USM: 661
● Total: 13331
Matthew commented that there will still be practical issues that need to be addressed before this work can get off the ground such as when and where the scanning can take place.
The Project Team discussed the affect existing internal digitization priorities would have on this work. Deb had mentioned at the Collection Development Committee the possibility of having a Digitize-On-Demand request form for patrons to request a digitized copy of an item.
iv. Collection building
Time restrictions meant the Collection Development Committee didn’t get to spend much time discussing collection building at their February 27th meeting, but the Committee agreed that they would think about whether there are subject areas they want to build on to become collection builders and also some collection un-building for subject areas they would like to weed. This activity will be discussed at the April Committee meeting.
d. MSCC sustainability planning
i. Appointment of MSCC committees
As agreed at the last Project Team meeting, Matthew asked Joyce Rumery as Chair of the Maine InfoNet Board of Directors to appoint a Board of Directors for the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative so they could appoint members to the Collections & Operations Committee. Joyce invited Matthew to attend the Maine InfoNet Board of Directors meeting on March 3rd. Matthew was given the opportunity to discuss current MSCS activities and ask the Executive Committee to appoint the MSCC Board.
Not all members of the Executive Board (who are responsible for appointing the MSCC Board) were present, but when they next meet, they will discuss the appointment of the MSCC Board. Clem commented that this decision could be made via email.
The Maine InfoNet Board of Directors also agreed that the current MSCS groups should continue their activities until August 2014. The MSCS Collection Development Committee will be asked to make recommendations to the MSCC Board for the role and responsibilities of the Collections & Operations Committee.
ii. MSCC Program Manager role
Joyce Rumery is looking into UMaine options that could support continuation of post-grant MSCC activities and the MSCC Program manager role (e.g. part of a temporary or existing position).
iii. Initial survey results
Matthew has sent out the ‘Cooperative Collection Management’ survey to 308 library directors in Maine. The deadline for the survey is March 25th. Matthew will send out a reminder before the survey is closed.
Deb agreed to provide Matthew with contact details for HSLIC libraries in Maine, so the survey can be sent to them.
Matthew commented that it was good to see that the results so far have shown there is interest in potential MSCC activities. Matthew will post the anonymized results on the MSCS website.
Matthew asked the Project Team their thoughts on arranging a MSCS session to present the results and discuss membership of MSCC. Matthew commented that a slot at a Maine InfoNet collection summit seemed a better way to attract attendees than a separate event just for MSCC. Clem will speak to Joyce about organizing the summit. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they had any other thoughts on how the results of the survey could be used to plan for MSCC. Clem responded that they should wait until all the results are in before making a decision.
iv. Storage of grant data
Deb attended a webinar on Open ICPSR. Deb reported that the fees for “Open ICPSR” and the fact UMaine and Colby (and perhaps others) already are ICPSR paid members, if MSCS use ICPSR for any data deposit it would probably be under the regular, member-accessed data curation option, not the Open program. The member option also allows for far more data storage than does Open ICPSR. Clem commented that alongside the data there would need to be a description explaining what the data concerns.
The Project Team discussed the question of which data MSCS would need to store and make accessible beyond the grant. One example is the MSCS collection data that was extracted by SCS from their client database and which is currently in the MSCS Project Team Dropbox folder. However, the Project Team were not convinced this data was something other libraries would be interested in. Clem suggested that a link to the data could be inserted into MSCS’s performance report. Matthew commented that a lot of MSCS’s documents and summary outputs are already on the MSCS website.
The Project Team discussed Digital Commons as a possible location for grant data.
Matthew reported that IMLS doesn’t have any explicit guidance on data storage. Clem commented that Federal open access rules don’t apply to IMLS as it doesn’t reach the $100 million threshold for grants.
Matthew commented that he could speak to UMaine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Program about what other services UMaine federal grant recipients are using to store data.
v. University of Toronto query re. MSCS business model
Matthew was contacted by Laura Anderson from the University of Toronto who are in the planning stages of a shared print project. Laura was mainly interested in hearing about the governance structure and business model of MSCS and MSCC. Their model is probably going to be very different from MSCC’s model, because UT is looking at becoming a last copy repository.
e. Collection analysis
i. Step Two CTR filtering
Sara has begun the process of filtering MSCS CTR lists of titles of specific publishers agreed in Step One–starting with UMaine titles.
ii. Completing work with SCS
Matthew commented that now MSCS has the CTR lists (and database data) from SCS it seems like their services are no longer required, he was thinking of contacting SCS and thanking them for their work with MSCS.
Deb commented that MSCS had agreed with SCS that they would make the MSCS data in their client database available for 2 years. Matthew commented that he is sure that SCS would still be willing to answer any follow-up questions MSCS might have.
The Project Team agreed that Matthew should contact SCS and let them know that their work with MSCS is complete and express the Team’s appreciation for their work on the project.
iii. Access to SCS database
See above.
iv. Deferred access to OCLC Collection Evaluation update
Matthew has not heard any more from Sara Randall (OCLC) regarding their proposal for MSCS’s deferred access to OCLC Collection Evaluation tool.
f. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. Local Catalog – loading updates & agreement on serial/journal public display
The load of retention statements in local catalogs for CTR monographs has been completed for Step One titles. Portland Public Library have been working with Sara on the public display of the retention statement (see here). They are not going to make the MSCC text a link, which Matthew commented is not ideal because you don’t get the context of what MSCC is, but it seemed like it was going to be a lot of work on their end to get this to work, so Matthew asked Sara not to push it with them. Sara commented that it was more an issue of having to install the JavaScript to get it to work (one more thing to do) and they thought that since it wasn’t the main public catalog anymore that folks looking at the Classic Catalog would be more likely to be staff anyway. Clem commented that the public wouldn’t be interested in seeing MSCC, so the link is less important. Matthew responded that the ambiguity of what the MSCC retention statement refers to could be an issue for library staff not involved in the project.
Sara reported that she is still experimenting with the retention loads and public display for journals and serials in URSUS, and hopes to have the load complete by April. Matthew commented that there seems to be agreement from the Project Team and Collection Development Committee on the public display of the MSCC retention statement (see here). Sara will discuss the display with the MSCS Technical Services Committee at their March meeting. Sara reported that in testing she has experienced some display oddities with the USM checkins.
ii. OCLC WorldCat – batch loading process update
Sara and Bill Carney (OCLC) independently of one another contacted OCLC batch loading services to check on the progress of the batch loading request, after it had gone over the 90 day period of completion quoted in their auto response to the request.
In response to her and Bill’s chasing, Sara received notification from OCLC that the batch loading services have assigned a new person to processing the request, but there were still no definitive dates of completion–just that they are preparing to start the process!
Clem will bring up with Bill (at the OCLC event Clem is presenting at), MSCS’s displeasure with the time it has taken OCLC to process the request.
iii. MaineCat
MSCS still need the display in OCLC before it will appear in MaineCat.
James and Clem will speak to Sara about the possibility of her attending a meeting in Portland, OR with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. to discuss the display of the 583.
iv. PAPR shared print submission – communications with CRL
Sara has been corresponding with Marie Waltz and Amy Woods regarding the process for having MSCS commitments for journals and serials appear in CRL’s Print Archives Preservation Registry. Sara reported she had made Marie and Amy aware of some typos about MSCS on PAPR.
Deb was concerned that if PAPR is not a static list it would be another place that holdings information would need to be keep updated which would be onerous for staff.
2. Conferences, Events & Meetings
a. Northeast Regional Print Management Project – MR & CG updates
Clem and Matthew have continued to have Northeast Regional Print Management Project meetings. The groups are currently working on reports for their recommendations in phase 2 regarding governance and business models.
b. OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event, Dublin, OH, March 27 – 28, 2014
Clem is presenting at the OCLC/CIC Regional Print Management event in Dublin, OH, March 27 – 28, 2014. Matthew has tweeted and put updates about it on the MSCS website.
c. MSCS/CRL ALA session, Las Vegas, LV, June 27, 2014
Agenda
Matthew is still waiting for the HathiTrust presenter to be confirmed and for Ben Bunnell from Google Books to get back to him regarding who from their team is available to present.
Location
The deadline for submitting meeting space request was the beginning of March and ALA Housing is currently working with conference hotels on assigning space. Matthew should hear where the session will be around mid-April time.
Registration
There are still around 30 registrants for the session.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. March 31, Technical Services Committee, Miller Library
b. April 7, Collection Development Committee Meeting, Miller Library
c. April 9, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library (Classroom)
Deb has another meeting scheduled at the same time as the Project Team meeting. The Project Team were available on times on April 10th and 11th, so Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll with a choice of time slots on those days.
d. May 28, Directors’ Council Meeting, Miller Library