Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
March 13, 2013
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato (on phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. SCS – data pull, planning session feedback, local interest rules & scenario development meeting
Matthew informed the Project Team that there were delays in processing the Sustainable Collection Services (SCS) invoice submitted for 50% of their consulting costs because the invoice had got lost in the UMaine Purchasing system. Matthew had Rick Lugg send the invoice directly to him, and he passed it on to Susan Clement, who passed it on to Purchasing. SCS received the check in early March. In the future Rick will cc. Matthew in whenever he submits documents to UMaine Purchasing, so Matthew can chase if necessary.
All the data questionnaires were submitted by the MSCS Collection Development & Technical Services representatives on time to SCS (by Friday February 22nd). Sara also completed her data pull work on schedule. There were some questions about including barcodes in the data pull, but they got resolved when Venice Bayrd from Maine InfoNet requested the Minerva export table modified to include barcodes. Bangor Theological Seminary records were also successfully included in the data pull.
Matthew commented that he thought the SCS Planning Session held at Colby College on February 15th had achieved its purpose. MSCS representatives and SCS had agreed on data to be pulled and identified potential anomalies. The session was also a good introduction to the services SCS will provide, which, based on feedback from attendees impressed them greatly. But more importantly, it reignited the collections analysis side of MSCS. The Project Team agreed that it had been a successful session.
Matthew reminded the Project Team that Rick Lugg had set MSCS Collection Development & Technical Services representatives the task of producing local interest rules for categories of materials which will likely be retained at group or individual library, regardless of circulation and usage. Clem commented that although most material on Maine will be retained and preserved by each of the MSCS partner libraries, Colby might be willing to transfer some of their ‘Maine’ items to the State Library where it can be part of a consolidated Maine collection.
Matthew and Rick had shared a local interest rules document with the MSCS representatives using Google Groups. The deadline for submitting the document to SCS was March 12th (or sooner), in time for them to process MSCS data by March 15th and to give them enough time to produce the Group Collection Summary by March 31st. Matthew made it clear to Rick that the MSCS Project Team would not want to extend deadlines just for the local interest rules.
Rick had been concerned regarding the inactivity in the document. Matthew and Rick both sent reminders to the group on March 11th to contribute to the document. Rick also recommended that MSCS keep things as simple as possible. He doesn’t think there is any way MSCS will capture everything Maine-related via these techniques, so this will always be a partial solution, and the likelihood of false hits is pretty high when using a keyword like Baxter or Portland, for instance. So MSCS needs to be realistic about the limitations here—and to recognize that SCS have full MARC records in the data set, which will allow MSCS to query against specific classifications or subject heading fields, etc. – to supplement the local interest flag.
Matthew reported that viewing the revision history today (March 13th) it looked like a number of MSCS representatives had now reviewed the document and some had made edits.
The rules thus far had been for Maine items only. Matthew reported that Lanny Lumbert from USM had asked whether areas of interest to individual participating libraries might be included, for example USM might be interested in material about Franco-Americans or Gay and Lesbian material. A discussion then ensued regarding whether the rules should only be used for Maine items, or whether other library subject strengths should be protected. Clem was surprised that Arctic Studies had not been listed by Bowdoin. Barbara reported that her staff had been discussing adding juvenile fiction. Deb responded that she did not want the list to be used for too broader categories. Clem asked Matthew whether the rules could be revised at a later date. Matthew was not sure, but he will check with Rick and report back.
Matthew had asked Rick to wait until the rules are given approval by the Project Team before he applies them to the MSCS data sets. However, to avoid delays Matthew asked the Project Team to agree on the rules at the meeting. The Project Team reviewed the rules and approved the content. They also agreed that ‘New England History’ was too broad a rule. The examples samplings for KW Maine in MaineCat and URSUS appeared to be inaccurate because of the use of system limits in MaineCat.
Matthew reported that to keep the momentum going from the SCS planning session he had started the scheduling process for the scenario development meeting straight after the planning session. The meeting will be held at Colby College on Monday April 8th from 10-3. The meeting is going to be a chance to review the collection summaries as a group and to use the data to develop preliminary retention, preservation, and withdrawal criteria.
ii. OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis – refund offer
Matthew reminded the Project Team that he and Deb had received an email from Kathryn Harnish from OCLC offering a refund for MSCS libraries subscription to WCA. This was based on feedback she had received from Matthew and others at ALA Midwinter, in particular regarding the reporting functionality of the current product and delays in the release of the analytics product.
Whilst this was a generous offer, Matthew reported that a refund of this kind would lead to all sorts of complications. Matthew had confirmed with Chuck Thomas from IMLS that MSCS would be expected to reallocate the funds to a MSCS related activity. To reimburse the partners would be a complicated process and funds would only need to be requested again at a later date. However, turning down the refund would not be a popular decision particularly in this current economic climate for libraries.
Matthew was therefore grateful for Sara’s excellent idea of asking instead to be given access to the new OCLC analytics product on its release in May. MSCS could at last test the product which would make a great reporting subject for IMLS comparing SCS, WCA and an in-house solution.
Matthew contacted Kathryn and she responded that she would be delighted to give MSCS access. However, Matthew reminded the Project Team that the product version being released in May is oriented towards individual libraries rather than a group. OCLC assume a single library comparing against one or more other libraries. The “group” functionality complete with reporting ability isn’t scheduled until 2014. Kathryn suggested that Matthew arranges a time for Meghan Hopkins, the product manager for Collection Evaluation, to give MSCS a tour of the pilot version and do a walk-through of the roadmap and major features planned yet in 2013-2014. After that, MSCS can assess whether access to the new version would be of benefit to the project.
The Project Team agreed that they want to wait until 2014 when MSCS can access the full product with group collection evaluation and reporting functionality. Matthew will inform Kathryn of the Project Team’s decision.
b. OCLC Shared Print Symbol & 583/856 testing
i. ILL Testing
Sara presented her investigations into having both OCLC symbols on material, e.g. bbh (Bowdoin) and bbhsp (Bowdoin Shared Print). Using slides, Sara showed how you could make the bbhsp non-request able for ILL and leave the other holding as is. Sara recognized that this is not necessarily within OCLC guidelines for Shared Print, but suggested it could be a compromise to the issues MSCS have with the satellite fee for the symbols in ILLiad. So once OCLC work out whatever details of shared print symbols, ILL, LHRs, etc., redundant holdings could be removed.
Sara has contacted Bill Carney, Lizanne Payne and Constance Malpas at OCLC regarding her idea. Lizanne thought that if possible have the regular symbol at the bib level and then have shared print symbol at LHR level. However, Sara was thinking both symbols should be at the bib level so it can be viewable in OCLC WorldCat. Sara is still waiting to hear from Bill and Constance, but she will pass on their thoughts to the Project Team.
Clem reported that this might be a solution to not paying the fee, but philosophically he had a problem with only being able to lend shared print items in-state using MaineCat rather than out of state in OCLC WorldCat. Both Clem and Barbara were concerned that using a non-request able symbol would make MSCS non-suppliers for shared print items. Matthew responded that shared print items could still be requested in OCLC, but that users would have to use the regular symbol – rather than the shared print symbol. Sara commented that there would have to be note in the registry to say the item can be requested through the other ‘regular’ symbol. Clem responded that you would need to communicate the need to use a different symbol to frequent borrowers – as they don’t necessarily go to the registry.
Sara reported that using two symbols would mean there would be two holdings on each bib records which would mean reporting it twice and make for some unusual reporting.
Matthew asked Sara if Guy from Bowdoin (who Sara had discussed the symbols with) had commented on any potential problems with using two symbols. Sara responded that Guy could not think of any problems. Deb commented that she would contact Greg Curtis at UMaine to get his opinion on potential ILL implications of having two OCLC symbols.
ii. LHR OCLC Tool testing
Nothing to report.
iii. Communications with III – ‘n’ & ‘z’ field tags
Sara reported that she had polled the MSCS Technical Services representatives on the use of the MARC 856 field as a work around to the inability to display a URL in a 583 |u as an active link. They were 2-1 against using 856 in a non-standard way (for retention & preservation notes).
Sara presented different options for displaying the 583 MARC subfield in MSCS partner library catalogs. She reported that display is highly dependent on the discovery layer e.g. Aquabrowser (CBB), Summon or Bibliocommons (PPL). There are specific issues with the different discovery layers used by MSCS partner libraries which means 583 won’t display the same in each catalog. In addition to looking at Aquabrowser Clem asked Sara to look at the display options in Summon.
Sara’s first example showed the 583 field in Bowdoin’s local catalog. She highlighted the extra ‘note’ column that would display in all records, and that MSCS libraries would have no ability to specify which field of 583 displayed. The Project Team agreed with Sara that this was an ‘ugly’ display and Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III) would need to fix the issues with the note column.
The second example shown was the 583, again in the Bowdoin’s local catalog, but this time with JavaScript which removed the Note column on records without retention statements. The Project Team agreed with Sara that this example displayed much better. According to Sara, this approach would require mild overhead. Sara also reminded the Project Team that this was in III displays – as it does not flow to the central system.
The third example shown was the 856 field in Bowdoin’s local catalog. Sara reported that it will transfer to MaineCat and is already configured to display in most catalogs. However, she reminded the Project Team that this was a non-standard use of the field and may lead to problems in the future when migrate systems. Clem responded that it might be a workable solution in the short-term.
Sara finally presented different 583 display options for displaying in the central system MaineCat. She showed a very interesting method of using screen scrape or API from OCLC until III can handle the transfer of 583 data.
Clem commented that MSCS Project Team representatives need to go back to III because there are going to be lots of libraries who will want to do the same things with the 583 field as MSCS do and that it should not be too difficult a task. Sara asked how MSCS should approach III. Clem replied that he and James were due to meet with III soon and they will bring it up then. If that doesn’t work they will seek other people to speak to at III until the issue of displaying the 583 field is resolved.
c. HathiTrust
i. Consortial & individual membership pricing quote
Matthew shared the price quote he received from Jeremy York at HathiTrust and had circulated prior to the meeting. The quotes were for individual membership for the eight MSCS partner libraries and a consortial membership which contained all the partner libraries. This is a summary of the quote:
“Based on the overlap from the holdings data you provided, we currently estimate the 2013 fee for ALL institutions at $19,084.01. This includes a portion of the fee, shared by all partners, for fully viewable volumes in HathiTrust of $10,417.22, and a fee for the in-copyright volumes in HathiTrust that ALL institutions have in their collections of about $8,666.79.”
Jeremy went on to say that: “In all, we received 1,999,504 usable holdings entries (1,970,579 monographs and 28,925 serials) for ALL institutions, containing 1,799,674 unique OCLC numbers. Of the unique OCLC numbers, 705,022 (39.2%) match HathiTrust, corresponding to 1,447,353 HathiTrust items. Of those 1,447,353, 1,087,557 (75.1%) are in copyright, 359,796 (24.9%) are in the public domain.”
The important point was that consortial membership would be more cost effective than individual membership. However, the Project Team agreed that they also want to see a quote for a consortium containing only the academic MSCS libraries because authentication issues (see below) mean that public libraries would not be able to join in the foreseeable future. Matthew agreed to go back to HathiTrust for another quote and will present the quotes at the next MSCS Directors Council meeting on March 28th.
Clem asked James if Maine InfoNet would be the fiscal agent for HathiTrust. James responded that it could, but it would affect Maine InfoNet’s financial status.
ii. Authentication issues
James reported that he had received a response to his enquiries about Shibboleth implementation from the University of Maine IT department. They informed James that they were going to be looking at Shibboleth next – starting in early March, 2013.
James also reminded the Project Team about his discussions with Jeremy York back in December/January. Jeremy had 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). There are some HathiTrust members 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.
iii. Implementation investigations
Following on from her presentation regarding the display of the 583 and 856 fields Sara moved on to presenting her investigations into different options for implementing HathiTrust records into MSCS library catalogs.
The first option Sara presented was from the New York Art Resources Consortium and showed how simple links to the HathiTrust items can be added in the local catalog using JavaScript. Sara reported that this option was very easy to do (if OCLC number showing.) However, limitations are that it is NOT an e-record (limiting, facets) so have to have the record already in system and does not flow to the central system. One could do the same thing on the central system using JavaScript.
The second option Sara presented was from Colgate University and showed a HathiTrust link in the 856 field in the local catalog.
The Project Team agreed that both these two options would be relatively simple to implement, but that it would not meet the requirements of the grant to deliver E-book-On-Demand (EOD) and Print-On-Demand (POD) to library patrons.
The third option Sara presented was from the KentLink Library Catalog and showed loading HathiTrust records directly into the local catalog. They have loaded ½ million records from the HathiTrust and would be willing to speak to MSCS representatives about the process. Using this approach the records would be loaded like any other eBook vendor. This option would be dependent on partner sites loading to flow to central server, but has the advantage of being an e-resource record for search and faceting.
The fourth option Sara presented was from the OhioLINK Library Catalog and showed the HathiTrust going to the central server.
Clem commented that he would prefer to treat the HathiTrust as a separate library in MaineCat. However, you can’t loads records directly into MaineCat so James suggested that the best place for HathiTrust records would be in Solar. The items would then be easily displayable in MaineCat – rather than just finding them through a discovery layer.
Clem asked Sara if HathiTrust items would overload search results. Sara said this was a good question and that she was not totally sure, but she thought that perhaps you could turn off the search for HathiTrust items. The Project Team agreed that most patrons used to using Google would be comfortable with high search hits and that it might be more of issue for staff at the libraries.
Clem commented that they would have to be a mechanism to allow a digital copy to be requested and delivered to patrons. To implement true EOD patrons should be able to download an item – rather just being able to open it. There would have to be a separate process for HathiTrust items where the request would be pulled from Solar and go through somewhere – Deb suggested possibly through the University of Maine Orono
Sara also showed a search option in the HathiTrust catalog using OCLC WorldCat. Sara was not sure what the relationship between OCLC and HathiTrust exactly is.
Finally Sara shared with the Project Team questions she still has regarding the HathiTrust:
• Scope of access – partner vs. consortia. If all of the MSCS universities had it – what does this mean for access?
• Different record sets and access levels?
• Linking vs. Searching content – goal
• Ongoing updates (in any scenario)
James asked if the HathiTust ever lose content and how fast are they growing. Matthew responded that he believes the HathiTrust website keeps a running track of items added. Clem responded that he wasn’t aware of the HathiTrust losing material as a result of legal decisions.
HathiTrust is turned on for public domain material in Summon.
Deb commented that if the University of Maine turned on the MARC record then they would display and have access to HathiTrust material.
The Project Team agreed that the goal for MSCS is to link to HathiTrust content not search.
d. Budget
i. Update on spending for Grant Year 2
Matthew reported that due to illness he had missed his scheduled meeting with Susan Clement to go over MSCS spending, but the only big expense since the last meeting was travel and will be even more with funding for attendance at the IFLA Conference in Singapore (see below). Susan was able to provide Matthew with figures for how much MSCS had spent so far on travel. Matthew reported that up to March 13th, 2013 (which includes Jeremy York Flight, WebWise & SCS meeting) MSCS have spent a total of $27,422 for both instate and out of state travel.
MSCS still has planned SCS, Project Team, Directors meetings & NELA for in-state meetings, ALA Annual attendance, Timberline & IFLA out of state conferences. Clem responded that he would not require grant funds for his ALA Annual Conference costs.
Matthew estimated total costs for himself and Clem to attend IFLA was $10,214. This amount would be spread over Grant Years 2 & 3.
Based on funds available for travel in Year 3 a discussion then ensued regarding what conferences MSCS representatives could present at. Clem suggested potentially the American Library Association’s Association of Colleges and Research Libraries (ACRL) 2014 Conference for a final project presentation. Also the OCLC’s American Regional Council event might be another conference for MSCS to present at. Matthew commented that ALA Midwinter might also offer potential speaking opportunities. Another conference mentioned was the Charleston Conference, but perhaps for only one MSCS representative.
Matthew asked the Project Team whether they approved using grant funds to pay for the not insignificant IFLA conference costs. The Project Team agreed that the approval of the paper by IFLA (see below) was a great achievement and would promote the work of MSCS. They therefore approved the use of grant funds to pay for both Matthew and Clem to attend the IFLA Conference to be held in Singapore in August 2013.
ii. Impact of sequester on funding
Matthew reported that Mike Hastings head of the University of Maine’s Office of Research & Sponsored Programs (ORSP) had informed Joyce Rumery (Dean of Libraries) that the federal sequester cuts would begin on February 28th. So far MSCS had not been informed by IMLS of any cuts, which Matthew hoped meant MSCS would not be affected. If MSCS were to be cut it would be 8.2% each year.
e. MOU
i. Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group review update
Barbara informed the MSCS Project Team that the Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group is meeting next Tuesday (March 19th) and would review the MSCS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
f. Articles
i. Maine Policy Review – article submitted
Matthew reported that he had submitted the side bar article on MSCS for an issue of the Maine Policy Review that will be on the topic of libraries, but was not sure when it will be published. James reported that all comments have not been received back from the editor yet for the edition. Clem commented that the issue should be released in either April or May.
ii. Library Journal
Matthew reminded the Project Team that Mike Kelley, Editor In Chief of the Library Journal, had contacted him regarding an article he wanted to write on MSCS. Mike sent questions to Matthew about MSCS which he and the Project Team had answered. Mike then sent Matthew a draft version of the article which he shared with the Project Meeting for approval. The Project Team were pleased with the article.
Mike was not sure whether the article would be an online article only or also be in hard copy. Matthew reported that if it was in hard copy they would also need art for it. Matthew was not sure when the article will be published, but he will keep the Project Team updated.
Note: The article was published online on March 15th, 2013: http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/03/managing-libraries/major-maine-libraries-public-and-academic-collaborate-on-print-archiving-project/
In addition to the article, Matthew reported that he will also be participating in a Library Journal webinar panel: The format is generally that each panelist does a presentation with a PowerPoint, and Jeanne Goodrich, executive director; Las Vegas-Clark County Library District leads any discussion and questioning. The panel discussion will be on June 6th at 3 pm EST. The description of the webinar is:
“Data-driven collection analysis is growing quickly as libraries take advantage of the new tools and services on the market that allow for rapid evidence-based decision making about everything from what materials to buy and how to deploy collections. Such data is also underpinning large collaborative efforts to create shared strategies for management of print collections.”
Matthew will be joined on the panel by: Amanda Owens, materials selector, Tulsa City County Library & Aimee Fifarek, technologies and content manager, Scottsdale Public Library.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. OCLC Collections Analysis webinar – feedback
On Wednesday, February 27th Matthew attended a webinar from OCLC on collections analysis titled “Collections Analytics: Using Data to Drive Decisions.” The first part was from Kathryn’s presentation which Matthew and Sara saw at ALA Midwinter regarding analytics.
There was then a presentation from Dave Fowler, Head of Licensing, Grants Administration & Collection Analysis at the University of Oregon. They were part of the OCLC Analytics pilot project and were conducting internal analysis looking at their coverage of subjects, academic programs review and peer comparisons.
Kathryn and Meghan Hopkins then reviewed the functionality of the new analytics product comparing it with the current OCLC WorldCat Collections Analysis tool. One example, was when looking at subjects with WCA you had to go down multiple tiers to pull data. In the new product you only need to go in one time and go and look at the subheadings.
b. Travel claims
Matthew reported that all MSCS representative travel claims were submitted on deadline (February 28th) and Susan was going to process them this week. Because it had been a while since claims had been submitted Matthew received a lot of questions regarding the form and the claim process. Matthew will send a clean copy of the claims spreadsheet next time the claims are due because some of the formulas in local copies were corrupted.
c. WebWise Conference – MSCS representatives feedback
Matthew and Deb attended the IMLS WebWise Conference in Baltimore, MD from March 7th – 8th. Matthew presented at the lightening lunch which involved each presenter delivering 3 slides in 3 minutes on their project. Matthew covered MSCS objectives and current activities and he managed to do it in the time allocated. Matthew will post the slides on the MSCS website.
Matthew reported that the conference was very informative – particularly regarding the work of other IMLS funded projects. Matthew found the work OCLC are doing linking library data to Wikipedia particularly interesting.
WebWise attendees were assigned to groups (based on areas of interest identified in a pre-conference questionnaire) to develop a grant project idea and develop it into a proposal. Matthew and Deb were assigned to the same group and looked at developing aggregated digital libraries hubs in the states of Maine and New York and the District of Columbia. Deb was responsible for reporting back her group’s proposal. Matthew and Deb commented that their group facilitator Joan Lippincott was very helpful – as an IMLS proposal reviewer she knew exactly the type of language needed for a grant proposal.
Matthew commented that those attendees with a new project idea in mind would get the most benefit from WebWise because you got to meet with IMLS representatives and network with potential collaborators. Deb commented that in hindsight she wished she had attended the pre-conference workshops because they covered interesting subjects.
d. Advisory Board & Jeremy York visit – agree agenda & presentations content
Matthew reminded the Project Team that he had organized Jeremy York from the HathiTrust visit to Maine. This involved getting approval from IMLS to reallocate funds and Matthew had to provide a cost estimate which came to $2,091, which included: speaking fees, flight, hotel, meals & transportation costs. Matthew was also corresponding with Jeremy regarding his flights, hotel, fees and content of presentations.
Jeremy arrives late on Wednesday 22nd May and departs the evening of Friday 24th May. Whilst here Jeremy will be presenting at MSCS meetings at Colby College on Thursday 23rd May and on Friday May 24th with Advisory Board Member Constance Malpas at the Maine InfoNet Collections Summit.
Matthew reported that in terms of subjects for the MSCS meetings he was thinking that Bob Kieft could cover issues with transitioning from using print to electronic resources, Lizanne Payne could provide an update on shared print projects happening throughout the US, and Constance could cover OCLC’s shared print management program particularly use of 583 and the shared print symbol. Matthew proposed that the MSCS Directors Council meeting be scheduled first, followed by Advisory Board and Jeremy York presentations and finally a joint MSCS Collections Development/Technical Services Committees meeting.
Jeremy York will be presenting on HathiTrust implementation stories including how people are using it for Print on Demand or facilitating ILL, etc. and future plans for growth of the HathiTrust and how to add content.
The Project Team approved the presentation subjects and schedule proposed by Matthew, but also asked him to check if the Advisory Board had their own thoughts on potential topics.
The schedule will be:
10–11:30 Directors Council Meeting (including the Directors, Advisory Board and Jeremy York).
11: 30–11:45 Break
11:45–1:45 MSCS Collections Development/Technical Services will join the Directors for a boxed lunch presentation session. Each of the four presenters (Bob Kieft, Lizanne Payne, Constance Malpas & Jeremy York) will each have 30 minutes (including 10 minutes for questions).
1:45-2:00 Break
2:00-3:30 MSCS Collections Development/Technical Services Committee members will remain for a meeting including the Advisory Board and Jeremy York.
e. Speaking Opportunities
i. NELA presentation, Portland, Monday, October 21, 2013 – Agree presenters
Matthew reminded the Project Team that he had organized with the New England Library Association (NELA) a 75 minutes slot for MSCS at the NELA Conference in Portland, which includes 60 minutes to present and 15 minutes for questions. The session is sponsored by NELA’s academic section and the technical services sections.
The Project Team agreed that Matthew and Deb will represent MSCS. Matthew will get back to NELA by April 1st regarding who is going to be presenting and include a program description for what they will cover.
In terms of costs speakers will receive complimentary registration and one free meal.
ii. ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013 – MSCS contributors
Clem, Sara and Matthew will be presenting at the American Library Association’s (ALA) Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) Preconference event being organized by Rick Lugg in Chicago on June 27th.
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”.
The Project Team agreed that Sara’s travel, accommodation for two nights and expenses for two days will be paid for using grant funds.
iii. 2013 IFLA Conference, Singapore, 17 – 23 August, 2013 – MSCS paper update
Matthew reminded the Project Team of the good news that the paper he and Clem submitted was accepted by the IFLA Acquisitions & Collection Development Section jury. The MSCS paper is titled: “Together we are stronger: A cooperative approach to managing print collections.” The paper will be presented by Matthew and Clem at the Conference to be held in Singapore in August, 2013.
According to the message Clem and Matthew received “They (IFLA) had the largest number of papers submitted than we can remember.” This makes it even more pleasing that MSCS were accepted and explains the extension to the submission deadline and delays in contacting applicants.
Clem and Matthew will meet to prepare the paper for submission before the May 1st translation deadline.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. March 28, Directors Council Meeting, Colby College Miller Library
Matthew reported that he intended on including on the agenda: project updates, details of SCS costs, HathiTrust quote and discussion of shared print symbol.
Clem asked Matthew to also include the MSCS MOU, so the Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group representatives in attendance can report back their recommendations.
James reminded Matthew he will not be able to attend the meeting.
b. April 8, SCS Scenario Development Meeting, Colby College
Covered above.
c. April 10, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library
d. May 18 – 21,Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon