Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
May 15, 2013
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato (on phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
Absentees: Barbara McDade
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. SCS – Revised collection summaries, boxplots & working scenario one feedback, additional scenario development & Collection Management/Technical Services meeting planning
Revised collection summaries
Matthew reported that Andy Breeding from SCS had distributed the revised collection summaries which incorporated:
• A new worksheet titled “circ-only” which contains the circulation tallies as applied to circulating titles only.
• Revised Last Circulation Date tallies for Portland Public Library.
• Revised Internal Use Counts for the University of Southern Maine.
• Revised HathiTrust match counts based on the availability of the newest file from HathiTrust
In terms of the overall circulation rates the removal of non-circulating items did not greatly changed the circulation rates (overall 4% difference) from the previous version. Nor was there a great difference in HathiTrust figures after SCS completed updated holdings look-ups. But it is good to know this version had corrected the issues with PPL & USM. No further issues have been identified.
Matthew asked Sara whether the issue concerning discrepancies between HathiTrust counts for MSCS items in the HathiTrust quote and SCS figure for MSCS overlap in HathiTrust had been resolved. Sara responded that the reason for the discrepancies had been identified as a result of differences in what SCS & HathiTrust count as Public Domain: HathiTrust includes: pd (public domain), pdus (public domain when viewed in the US only), ic-world (in-copyright and permitted as world viewable by the copyright holder), and cc* (Creative Commons Attribution and not und-world or icus). SCS is more restrictive and only includes “pd” or “pdus”. However, using this criteria Sara could not make her numbers add to the same as SCS. Deb commented that figures may be dependent on when Sara had run the counts as HathiTrust is continuing adding new material. Sara reported that they might be able to do more sophisticated data pulls and they check the 019 field, but Sara only checks the current number in the 001 field. The 019 field includes details of any other OCLC numbers that they have merged for the same item.
Boxplots
Andy had sent boxplots with circulation data to be used for subject analysis and which may be more useful in the future when looking at allocation. The Project Team agreed that they may be useful for subject analysis, but there is also the risk of them being too overwhelming for MSCS representatives.
Working scenario one feedback
Andy sent MSCS spreadsheets containing summary counts for titles and items which must be retained or are potential withdrawal candidates. The working scenario applied to the data was pre-2003 titles that are held by only one or two libraries in the MSCS Group. SCS have marked for retention any title-holding (or item) that meets any of the following criteria:
• Title-Holding added 2003 or later
• Any circulation OR internal use
• Any reserve activity
• Special collections location (applied at the item level)
• Any locally protected title
• Specific edition held in 9 or fewer libraries in the U.S.
The set of resulting “Must Retain” titles contained 1,076,188 title-holdings or 73% of the eligible universe of titles discussed above. This left 392,382 title-holdings, or 27%, available as “Potential Withdrawals” should libraries choose to pursue them.
Matthew reported he and Deb had asked Andy to also include titles and items that are not available digitally on the summary sheet for digital titles and items, so that the numbers add to the full 100%. The summary provided to the Project Team included those changes.
Although MSCS does not want to go too granular in analysis, Deb and Matthew felt it would be a useful illustration for MSCS representatives to see example of titles and items on the “Potential Withdrawals” list. So, using Colby as an example, Andy provided sample items from the withdrawal lists. Matthew shared these examples with the Project Team. Clem asked Matthew to send him an electronic version.
The Project Team reviewed Scenario One which included titles that have zero circulations and are available in the HathiTrust and Internet Archive. Clem and Deb commented that they want SCS to be less restrictive with HathiTrust data and include the highest number of public domain/open access matches from HathiTrust that are available “public domain,” US public domain, pd google, open access, and creative commons. Matthew agreed to speak to SCS about this.
Clem asked Matthew to request that Andy sends a spreadsheet for each library’s title/items in “Potential Withdrawals” that are in the HathiTrust and broken out by Public Domain and In-Copyright. Clem commented that it is unlikely that libraries will rely on an Internet Archive only copy as a digital surrogate. Clem also wants Andy to change in his spreadsheet the column title “Must Retain” to “Commitment to Retain” and “Potential Withdrawals” to “Needs further examination”.
Matthew asked the Project Team whether they wanted MSCS libraries to review detailed lists, or check shelves to ensure an item exists before committing to retain. The Project Team agreed that they did not want to review lists and definitely not ask library staff to check shelves. Clem commented that one of the goals of MSCS is to show how analysis can be conducted en masse, not at a granular level where staff could get bogged down in time-consuming reviews. There may be some items that are unnecessarily retained, but there is always that risk when analyzing 3 million items. Time would be better spent by MSCS representatives reviewing lists of HathiTrust overlap in the “Needs further examination” category. Matthew will request that Andy sends lists of those titles/items that the libraries have committed to retain to him and Sara, so that Sara can start the process of adding 583 statements and assigning the shared print symbol. Matthew will ensure that Andy breaks down the spreadsheets by institution.
Additional scenario development & Collection Management/Technical Services meeting planning
Matthew reported that, using scenario one, MSCS will be making retention commitments for 1,467,945 title-holdings (1,690,866 items) which constitutes 50% of all title-holdings in the MSCS data-set. Excluding those titles that “Needs further examination” MSCS still needs to develop additional scenarios to analyze those circulating titles which are held by three or more MSCS libraries. Matthew will include this in the agenda for the Collection Management/Technical Services May 23rd meeting. Matthew reported that Rick (in-person) and Andy (remotely) will also be attending. The Project Team were pleased that SCS would be present and agreed that Rick should attend the Directors Council meeting. The Project Team asked Matthew to ensure that the revised collection summaries and graphs & charts which were presented at the Scenario Development meeting by SCS are available for discussion.
ii. OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis tool – proposal update
Matthew reported that Megan Hopkins from OCLC has produced a proposal for MSCS to access the OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis tool which she has sent to her supervisor for review before she submits it to MSCS. Meghan was due to send the proposal to Matthew last week, but he still has not received it. Matthew will contact Meghan next week if he still hasn’t received the proposal.
b. OCLC Shared Print Symbol & 583/856 testing
i. 583 testing – Loading & display of retention information in catalogs & review draft target link for retention copies
Loading & display of retention information
Sara reported that she had met with the MSCS Technical Services Committee on May 8th to discuss primarily loading LHR’s retention statements and how best to do it.
James, Venice Bayrd, and Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) have managed in MaineCat to use OCLC WorldCat API screen scrape (instead of using local item 856) and JavaScript to do a check for when an item is in shared print. Sara commented this method appears to work, returns results very quickly and gets around the issue of what will transfer. However, by default there is a maximum of 50,000 calls a day. Sara asked James if he knew how much daily traffic MaineCat receives. James responded that he will check on this and get back to Sara. Sara commented that OCLC might be open to MSCS having a higher limit particularly as they are keen for the OCLC API to be used in this way. James presented the test record Maine InfoNet and Sara had been working on for display. The Project Team were impressed and Clem asked Matthew to ensure it was presented to the MSCS Directors Council at their meeting on May 23rd.
For the loading and display of retention information in local catalogs, Sara reported that she had been discussing with Venice and Colby, Bates & Bowdoin regarding the best method. Sara proposed that because of variances in how it is displayed in the various 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. The Project Team agreed that this was a good solution.
Clem asked what order the different library retention commitments would appear in. Sara was not positive, but she thought it might be based on the user’s geographical location, so if the user was closer to Orono it would show the University of Maine first.
Review draft target link for retention copies
Matthew presented to the Project Team Sara’s draft target link location (from the 583 field) on the MSCS website for retention copies. Matthew commented that he thought the wording was fine, but asked whether the retention period date needs to be non-specific, because going forward with the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative the commitments will not all be expiring in 2027.
Clem asked Sara if she knew what WEST is doing for their link and whether you see the retention commitment in the public interface of OCLC. Sara responded that she did not think WEST had got that far and that that you cannot tell in the public interface of OCLC what the retention period is, but Sara will bring this up with OCLC. Retention periods for commitments vary greatly depending on the shared print project. Some projects have specified 25 years periods and others have 15 years like MSCS. Sara confirmed that you can see the retention period in the OCLC LHR.
The Project Team agreed on the language of the link, but after some discussion decided to change the date of commitment from December 31, 2027 to June 30, 2028. See here for link: http://www.maineinfonet.net/mscs/about/retention-copies/. Sara agreed to make this change in the statement.
ii. Communications with OCLC – Bill Carney response to two symbols on holdings, Batchloading LHRs & costs, display of symbols & shared print questionnaire
Bill Carney response to two symbols on holdings
Matthew reported that after the April 10th Project Team meeting he had contacted Bill Carney to inform him of MSCS’s decision to implement two symbols on single records. Bill sent a response saying he understood the MSCS decision, and that he is pleased MSCS are disclosing retention commitments, even if libraries are not totally following OCLC recommended practice, and again he emphasized the fact that it will double MSCS library holdings for those with commitments. Bill committed to continuing to support MSCS efforts to register and disclose shared print decisions in OCLC. Matthew commented that Bill had shown through his work with Sara that he was still committed to supporting MSCS. Sara commented that Bill had emphasized to her that OCLC are not in a position to support two symbols.
Batchloading LHRs & costs
Sara reported that she had met with Bill, Lizanne Payne, Constance Malpas and Kathy Kie (OCLC support services and batch load liaison) to discuss the best practice for requesting symbols and submitting batch load service requests.
Sara was informed that there is a $355 onetime fee per institution for this service ($2,840 across all 8 libraries) which is for the template to be created. As long as MSCS continues to give OCLC the data in the same format, there should not be an ongoing fee. MSCS needs to make sure to check the “ongoing project” box in the OCLC batchload order form. Matthew responded that he thought IMLS grant funds should be used to fund this as the partner libraries had already made their contribution commitments and there was still funds available that were originally intended to hire a programmer. The Project Team agreed, so Matthew will submit this request to IMLS for approval. Matthew asked Sara to request that OCLC sends the invoice directly to him or Susan Clement rather than adding it to the individual library OCLC bills.
Sara explained the process for adding the 583 statements and OCLC shared print symbols. MSCS will need to request from SCS the lists of those items that are in the ‘Committed to retain’ category. At least initially the batchload order form will be submitted to OCLC by Sara, rather than having 8 separate submissions. For the local III systems the same SCS lists will be used and the 583’s will be added using global update.
Display of symbols
Sara reported that some institutions saw both “Bowdoin College” and “Bowdoin College – Shared Collections” symbols in the public WorldCat web interface, while others saw just the Bowdoin College symbol. OCLC is working on resolving this. Sara was surprised that this issue had not been identified during the OCLC Pilot Project.
Bill is working on creating the remaining MSCS library shared print symbols. Deb asked Sara whether MSCS’s request for 1 million items to have shared print symbols & 583 retention statements is a first because it would make for good reporting. The Project Team thought it could be a first because projects like the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) have thus far not added the shared print symbol and 583 statements. Matthew commented that he would include it in his PAN report (see below).
Shared print questionnaire
Matthew reported that he and Clem and had received a forwarded OCLC shared print questionnaire from Judy Montgomery who had received it because Bowdoin has a shared print symbol. The questionnaire contained general information about why OCLC are working on shared print and gave libraries a chance to make recommendations to OCLC. Matthew sent Judy some suggestions, particularly regarding the shared print symbol ILL fees. Bill Carney has since sent a message regarding the questionnaire to the PAN listserv.
iii. Communications with III
Matthew asked James and Clem whether any meetings with Innovative Interface, Inc. (III) had been scheduled where they could raise the issue of making the “n” tagged note field flow from URSUS (where it displays correctly) to MaineCat/INN-Reach.
James responded that he and Clem are due to meet with III at the end of May, so will raise the issue then. They will also raise the issue alongside shared print representatives from Connect New York and at MELCAT.
Deb suggested Matthew send a Tweet about the issues MSCS is experiencing.
c. HathiTrust
i. Implementation investigations – Solar load request, KSU experiences, test records, POD links in HathiTrust records, ILL links for downloadable version & attaching holdings in OCLC
Solar load request
At the last Project Team meeting (April 10) it was agreed that HathiTrust records will need to be loaded into SOLAR before they can be accessed in MaineCat. Sara reported that James will take the request to load HathiTrust records into Solar to the Maine InfoNet Board.
POD links in HathiTrust records & ILL links for downloadable version
Individual libraries won’t have to load HathiTrust in their catalogs, but they will still be accessible through the discovery layer. HathiTrust will be added as a new SOLAR library with a location of possibly ‘Electronic Agency’. James commented that the downside of being its own agency and in SOLAR is that it would mean training for libraries (delivered by Maine InfoNet) for how to process requests as they would not be part of normal queues. Clem responded that having multiple request mechanisms would be confusing for library staff. James wondered whether perhaps there could be email requests routed to ILLiad.
Clem commented that he thought E-book-On-Demand (EOD) and Print-On-Demand (POD) requests should be treated differently. POD requests come to the University of Maine for printing. EOD routed equally to HathiTrust members.
Matthew commented that because of authentication issues for the public libraries and lack of progress implementing Shibboleth at the University of Maine presently only Colby and perhaps Bowdoin will become HathiTrust members. Clem commented that if this were the case it would be disappointing because consortial membership made better economic sense. James commented that he had passed on the details of the contractor used by Colby to implement Shibboleth to John Grover in UMaine Enterprise Computing and Application Services, but that after an initial burst of activity regarding Shibboleth all had gone quiet. Clem asked whether Joyce could speak to the Provost about this. James responded that it was only after Joyce had spoken to Dick Thompson the UMaine Chief Information Officer about the progress of implementing Shibboleth that led to it being back on the agenda for them. James will contact John again to see if any progress can be made with Shibboleth.
Deb wondered how POD/EOD options will be displayed in MaineCat on non-Hathi (non-digitized) public domain titles” e.g. if UM has a Special Collections book or pamphlet pre-1923 listed in MaineCat, that has not been digitized by anyone. Will POD or EOD services be provided on that type of title, and if so, how?
KSU experiences & test records
Sara reported that she had been having conversations with Kent State University (KSU) regarding loading HathiTrust records. KSU also sent Sara their HathiTrust records, which they had to clean up. Venice has loaded 5 test records into Solar – here’s a sample: http://mainecat.maine.edu/record=b11253978~S0 and the process seemed to go well. Sara will look at what needs to be cleaned. Sara, James and Venice plan to meet to discuss further EOD/POD.
Attaching holdings in OCLC
Sara asked the Project Team whether they though MSCS libraries should attach the HathiTrust holdings in OCLC. Deb responded that she did not think this was needed because HathiTrust links do not mean actual ownership. Clem responded that it depends on how faculty and staff search i.e. do they go through OCLC. Deb responded that the HathiTrust link is the first thing you see in the WorldCat.org listings, above listings for holding libraries. See: 
The Project Team agreed that this would be a decision for individual libraries.
ii. Consortial membership & authentication issues
See above.
d. Budget
i. SCS invoice received
Matthew reported that there had been another delay with an SCS invoice, but it has now been paid.
ii. Partner contributions towards SCS costs
Matthew reported that of those partner libraries who had requested for the SCS bill to be sent in the current fiscal year, some had still not sent their payment. Matthew will send out reminders.
iii. Actual spending vs. budget update – travel & Sara costs
Matthew broke down the remaining IMLS funds for the System Librarian (Sara Amato), travel (both in-state & out-state), programmer, miscellaneous supplies & materials, III data services, POD testing and Advisory Board costs.
Matthew reported that it is likely that MSCS will have funds remaining that were assigned for Sara’s work as Systems Librarian. Deb commented that she thinks Sara’s hours will likely increase in Grant Year 3, but Matthew responded that even then funds will remain unspent. Clem suggested that MSCS asks Sara to look at adapting her collections analysis database to include journals because this is something that still needs to be addressed and is something neither SCS or OCLC can help MSCS with. Matthew will speak to Sara about this work.
In terms of travel, because Clem and Matthew had submitted advanced travel claims for IFLA, MSCS are currently slightly over budget. Matthew commented that he is not concerned by this because IFLA costs are in reality Grant Year 3 costs and that MSCS still has a large allocation for travel in Year 3. There are remaining Year 2 travel costs for Sara’s accommodation and travel for ALA (if she submits them before the end of May), in-state travel to MSCS meetings (deadline end of May) and accommodation for Sara at Timberline.
There are still funds available that were allocated to contracting with a programmer, which MSCS are no longer going to use in this way. The $2,840 for OCLC batch loading services will come from this allocation (see above). However, this still leaves remaining funds. James commented that perhaps these funds could be used for the University of Maine to contract with the contractor Colby used to implement Shibboleth, which might speed up the process. Matthew commented that funds had been offered previously, but no progress had been made. James responded that perhaps if he made clear the amount available it might make more of an impact.
Matthew confirmed that there are IMLS funds allocated to cover the costs of the meals with the Advisory Board and MSCS representatives and that IMLS allows paying for food with grant funds as long as it is a working event. There are also funds available for meals with MSCS representatives in Year 3.
MSCS committed funds for paying Innovative Interfaces, Inc. for data series. The Project Team had hoped these funds would be used to investigate solving issues with making the MARC 583 “n” tagged note field flow from local catalog (where it displays correctly) to INN-Reach.
MSCS committed funds over Years 2 & 3 for testing the demand for POD services using UMaine Printing services.
In terms of cost sharing in the revised budget MSCS committed that Colby would pay for HathiTrust membership over Years 2 & 3. Clem commented that this was unlikely to happen by May 31st. Matthew responded that membership costs in Year 3 should mean MSCS are still matching and that as long as the amount is spent it doesn’t matter whether it is in Year 2 or 3.
e. MOU
i. New version to be presented at MIN Board Retreat
Clem outlined the background for his changes to the MSCS MOU, which was that both the MSCS Directors and Maine InfoNet Board had agreed that the language concerning the Executive Committee was too vague and could potentially result in smaller libraries being overrepresented in the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative. Clem presented the revised MOU at the Maine InfoNet Board and they liked the language. Therefore Clem will present the revised MOU to the MSCS Directors at the May 23rd meeting and then at the Maine InfoNet Board Retreat on June 5th. Clem commented that because the MOU will be signed by the libraries’ respective provosts and boards it did not make sense to leave its signing by each institution until right before the grant ends as the boards only meet periodically. Matthew commented with some of the retention commitments soon to be made the Directors would now have firm examples of what the libraries were committing to in the MOU.
ii. Specifics of retention period dates & website maintenance
Matthew requested that the Project Team change the duration of the agreement’s retention period to 15 years rather than specifying a date which may not be applicable to commitments made in the future.
The Project Team agreed to change the wording from “Libraries agree to retain material through December 31, 2027” to “Libraries agree to retain material from 15 years of date of signing”.
f. Articles
i. Maine Policy Review – Libraries edition gone to press
Matthew reported that the Maine Policy Review featuring the MSCS sidebar had gone to press and that authors should have copies next week. James commented that the electronic version became available that day (May 15th): http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/
ii. Bowdoin Sun
Matthew reported that Judy Montgomery had forwarded a nice article on MSCS in the Bowdoin Sun newspaper: http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2013/04/maine-libraries-lend-each-other-a-hand/#.UaS5ZEoSq3r
iii. ACRL Environmental Scan
Matthew reported that MSCS was included in ACRL environmental scan section “Radical Collaboration in Large Regional Print Repositories” alongside some pretty illustrious company: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/EnvironmentalScan13.pdf
iv. Library Journal mentions & effect on website hits
Matthew reported that MSCS was included in an LJ editorial piece on shared print and in the LJ Info Docket which included a link to the SCS Preliminary Analysis slides. This shows that LJ is keeping track of MSCS activities. Matthew commented that most of the MSCS mentions in various news feeds probably originate from the original LJ article.
MSCS publication features have resulted in an increase in MSCS website hits and views of MSCS representative presentations on SlideShare. Some of the high levels of SlideShare hits are in part a result of presentations being on hot topics like the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA). For example Barbara’s presentation on DPLA has had over 800 views which is nearly double the next-most viewed MSCS slides.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. Maine Larger Libraries meeting feedback
Clem reported that he gave a 10 minute update on MSCS activities at the Maine Larger Libraries meeting.
b. Advisory Board & Jeremy York visit – Meeting agendas, recordings, transportation logistics & meals
Agendas
Matthew reported that he will be circulating agendas for the MSCS meetings next week. All the presenters have approved the recording of their presentations. Matthew will attempt to sync the slides with audio.
The Project Team agreed that the discussions with the MSCS Collections Development/Technical Services Committees should begin with looking at those items with zero circulations that are available in the HathiTrust (not Internet Archive) and then move on to looking at those items held by 3 or more libraries.
Transportation
The Project Team agreed on transportation arrangements for during the Advisory Board and Jeremy York visit. Deb will take them to and from Colby on Thursday May 23rd for the MSCS meetings. Clem will pick them up for the meal. Matthew and Deb will take them on Friday May 24th to the Maine InfoNet E-Collections Summit at the University Maine. Matthew commented with flights etc. it would be best if they got taxis back from the Summit.
Meals
Clem reported that his secretary is ordering the food for the MSCS lunch at Colby on May 23rd.
Matthew reported that he had booked a restaurant table for the MSCS Project Team, Advisory Board, Jeremy York, and those MSCS Directors who are able to attend, for the Thursday May 23rd evening meal.
c. Planned MSCS presentations & reports
i. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon, May 19th, 2013
Sara reported that she is working on her presentation and has coordinated with Randy Dykhuis from the Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI) on content and time for Q&A once both have finished their respective presentations.
ii. Library Journal Data Series Webcast, June 6th, 2013
Matthew reported that unfortunately he missed out on some emails regarding the LJ Webinar he is presenting in because they had his name spelled wrong — one of the fellow presenters spotted the mistake and sent him a message last Friday May 7th. The presentation is not until June 6th, but the deadline for submitting slides is next Monday May 20th. Matthew commented that he was waiting for confirmation of his time allocation, so he can finalize his presentation.
iii. ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013
Matthew reported that MSCS presenters still have a bit of time before the presentations on June 27th but that if they want handouts produced by ALA then those would need to be with Rick Lugg by May 25th. Matthew commented that he intends on sending Rick a draft or plan of some sorts to check whether he is on the right track. Rick has also organized a meal for presenters for the evening of 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”.
iv. Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013 – Clem presentation & MSCS update report
Clem reported that Bob Kieft had asked him to report on MSCS work as part of the New England Region piece along with Margaret Maes (LIPA/NELLCO), Ken Peterson (Harvard) and Jay Schafer (UMass Amherst). There is a movement underway to create a New England version of WEST using a $50,000 grant from Mellon. Clem commented that geographically New England might present delivery problems for example, would UMaine rely on a copy held in Connecticut. Matthew asked Clem if the PAN piece was about group working or more concerned with individual project progress. Clem responded that he thought it was about individual project progress.
v. IFLA Conference, Singapore, 17 – 23 August, 2013 – MSCS paper submitted
Matthew reported that he had submitted his and Clem’s IFLA paper on April 22nd to ensure it met the May 1st translation deadline. Matthew received confirmation of receipt from Julia Gelfand at IFLA. The next task will be producing presentation slides. Matthew commented that it was unclear whether they have to submit those prior to the conference for translation. Clem responded that Matthew should check this with Julia.
d. Proposed MSCS papers
i. Charleston Conference – Call for papers
Matthew reported that The Charleston Conference has announced their call for papers for their 2013 Conference with the deadline in July. Matthew checked with Rick Lugg and SCS will not be organizing a pre-conference event. Matthew asked the Project Team whether they wanted him to submit a paper with Deb presenting it as she would get the most benefit from the conference. The Project Team agreed that MSCS should submit a paper and Deb will think about potential subjects using the conference theme as a potential guide.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. May 18 – 21, Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, Portland Oregon
b. May 23, MSCS Advisory Board Visit Meetings & Presentations, Colby College
c. May 24, Maine InfoNet E-Collections Summit, University Maine, Wells Conference Center
d. June 6, Library Journal Data Series Webcast
e. June 12, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library