Maine Shared Collections Strategy Directors Council
March 28, 2013
Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
1-3 PM
Attendees: Clem Guthro, Linda Lord, Judy Montgomery (On phone), Barbara McDade, David Nutty, Deb Rollins, Joyce Rumery, Gene Wiemers, Matthew Revitt
Absentees: James Jackson Sanborn, Steve Podgajny
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. SCS – cost contributions, planning session feedback & scenario development meeting
Cost contributions
Matthew updated the Directors on the progress of the collections analysis work with Sustainable Collection Services (SCS). The Project Team approved the revised proposal from SCS in early January. All of the paperwork for contracting with SCS was approved and signed by UMaine & SCS by February 12th.
Matthew broke down the costs of contracting with SCS and pointed out that the costs had increased since the original proposal presented to the Directors at the December 7th meeting because instead of counting the URSUS libraries as one they were now counted individually. This meant setup fees for eight instead of the five libraries originally quoted. However, also added at no extra charge were Bangor Theological Seminary (BTS) Library’s records. Clem commented that the reason for including BTS records was because Colby College is going to be ingesting part of their collection when the BTS library unfortunately closes.
As agreed in the contract, 50% of the SCS costs were paid at the signing of the contract. The funds for SCS will come in part from funds originally allocated to contract with a programmer in grant years 2 & 3. These funds are no longer required to contract with a programmer because the role has been replaced by a combination of SCS and Sara Amato (MSCS System Librarian).
MSCS partner libraries will each be expected to contribute $3,335.84, which is the same amount they would have contributed had MSCS continued with its group subscription to OCLC’s WorldCat Collection Analysis tool. These matching funds were originally intended to be used for purchasing an Espresso Book Machine (EBM) to deliver Print- On-Demand which, the MSCS Project Team decided not to purchase. However, the $3,335.84 amount is significantly less than the libraries would have originally contributed towards the EBM costs. Despite this, Matthew confirmed MSCS partner libraries will still meet their matching funds commitments through increases to in-kind contributions.
The Directors commented that they were very pleased with the amount they were expected to contribute. Gene asked Matthew if he knew when he would send invoices out for the costs. Matthew responded that he had wanted to get approval first from the Directors, but that he had no preference for when they got sent out – especially as the 50% had already been paid using grant funds. The Directors had different preferences for which fiscal year (2012-2013 or 2013-2014) they want to be billed in. Therefore Matthew will poll the Directors regarding which fiscal year they want to be billed.
Data pull
Matthew next updated the Directors on the data pulls from partner library catalogs which are required for the collections analysis. To ensure there were no delays, the process of pulling data was actually started before the contract with SCS was signed. Matthew was very grateful for SCS showing this faith in MSCS.
Sara, SCS, and Matthew coordinated with the MSCS Technical Services representatives to figure out what data was available and how it should be pulled. SCS had each of the libraries fill in questionnaires concerning their library collection records. The questionnaires were all submitted on time to SCS by Friday, February 22nd. Sara also completed her work on time by the Friday as well. BTS records were included successfully in the data pull. A total of 2.9 million MSCS items will be included in the collections analysis.
Matthew commented that although he wasn’t here for the last pull he got the impression that with SCS more data was pulled to ensure nothing was missing that might be needed at a later day – using parameters the data can then be filtered out if not required. Matthew was very impressed with SCS during this process, who very punctual in getting back to MSCS and quick to spot potential issues.
Planning session feedback
The MSCS Collection Management and Technical Services representatives had their first session with SCS on Friday February 15th – which considering all of the paperwork for the contract was only completed on February 12th was pretty fast work!
The planning session was used for ensuring MSCS and SCS agreed what data should be pulled and identified potential anomalies. It was also useful to introduce the services of SCS and for Matthew to give a refresher on the grant which was particularly important for those new to MSCS and the Collection Management Committee who had not met for a while. Matthew reported that the meeting was a success and had achieved its main purpose of reenergizing the collections analysis side of the project. Matthew also received positive feedback from attendees regarding the decision to contract with SCS.
Scenario development meeting
SCS are currently preparing MSCS data for analysis. The original goal was to provide MSCS with group collection summaries by March 31st. Unfortunately, it has taken SCS longer than they expected to complete the subject-related work for the summaries. They have had to find corresponding DDC-LC classes from other records in the MSCS project to populate the missing fields in their database. Matthew reminded the Directors that MSCS are the first project SCS have worked on where they will have to provide summaries and reports both separately in Dewey & LC and combined. The summaries will not be with MSCS libraries until Wednesday 3rd April, but Matthew felt that it should still give MSCS representatives time to look over them before the next meeting with SCS on Monday April 8th.
The summaries include an overview of the data to be used, including: circulation counts, WorldCat/Peer Counts, Date-Related Counts, and HathiTrust overlap. The summaries are intended as a starting place for collections analysis to help identify patterns in the data, and to estimate the potential yield of various retention strategies.
The summaries will be circulated to the MSCS partner libraries and Matthew hopes it will stimulate conversations for the meeting with SCS on April 8th. Attendees can start to discuss different retention, preservation and withdrawal scenarios then apply them to the data. Clem commented that this is going to involve some back and forth and testing to see the implications of different scenarios and retention rules. Deb commented that based on summaries shown at the planning meeting MSCS representatives are definitely going to need assistance interpreting them, so she is not worried about the delay. Matthew responded that SCS’s consulting services is what we are paying for as well as the data wrangling and it separates them from OCLC WCA who provided the data without offering assistance in interpreting it.
ii. OCLC WorldCat Collections Analysis – refund offer & access to analytics tool
Deb and Matthew have received an email from Kathryn Harnish offering MSCS a refund for its subscription to WCA. This was based on feedback Kathryn 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.
Matthew commented that a refund of this kind would lead to all sorts of complications in terms of grant funding. Chuck Thomas from IMLS had confirmed that MSCS partner libraries would still be expected to reallocate the funds to a MSCS related activity. So after going through a complicated process to reimburse the partners Matthew would just have to ask for the money again at a later date!
Matthew was therefore grateful for Sara Amato’s excellent idea of asking instead to be given access to OCLC’s new analytics product. MSCS can at last test the product, which would make for a great reporting subject to IMLS comparing it with SCS and the in-house solution which Sara Amato had been working on – manipulating the circulation data received from OCLC. Sara is still updating this database, but it has taken a ‘back burner’ for the Project Team as it concentrates on the work with SCS. Matthew commented that using the analytics product might also actually benefit MSCS collections analysis efforts.
The Project Team had agreed MSCS would request to defer access until 2014, when the group and reporting functionality will be complete. Kathryn Harnish was more than happy to offer MSCS access and had received approval from OCLC for it to be deferred. Matthew is going to be discussing access further with Meghan Hopkins the OCLC Product Manager for the tool on Wednesday April 3rd. Gene commented that MSCS would need to ensure it had an agreement with OCLC for access because 2014 is a long way off and personnel may have changed. Matthew responded that this was something he and Meghan would be discussing at their meeting.
b. 583/856 MARC Fields
i. Display testing & communications with III
Sara and Venice from Maine InfoNet have been testing the 583 subfield ‘n’ and ‘z’’ tags to document MSCS retention and preservation decisions. Venice found out that only the first local ‘x’ field group tag will transfer from local server to central server 949 subfield ‘n’. The local server item field group tag ‘n’ will not transfer. Local field ‘x’ is already being widely used for other purposes, so is not suitable. Innovative Interface, Inc. (III) were also sending out mixed messages regarding what tags would transfer.
As a possible alternative to using the 583 field Sara and Venice have been testing the 856 field and whether that transfers. After conducting tests Venice found that the 856 does, in fact, transfer, but would show displays of data already in the 856 field not related to retention & preservation.
Although an option, Matthew commented that no one is really sold on the idea of using the 856 field as a workaround to the inability to display a URL in a 583 |u as an active link. Sara polled the MSCS Technical Services representatives on the use of the MARC 856 field and they were 2-1 against using 856 in a non-standard way (for retention & preservation notes). Matthew commented that he had seen similar reactions when James had mentioned the use of 856 to attendees at the OCLC sessions at ALA Midwinter.
Sara has been working on a number of display options for the 583 field in MSCS library catalogs. She has found that how 583 displays is highly dependent on the discovery layer. There are specific issues with the different discovery layers used by MSCS partner libraries which mean 583 won’t display the same in each catalog. Another option Sara has looked at is to screen scrape from WorldCat to include the 583 info in the public interface, both in the local catalogs and MaineCat.
Clem and James are going to mention MSCS issues with the 583 field to III when they meet with them next. Matthew asked Clem if this meeting had been scheduled. Clem responded that he wasn’t sure as James was organizing it. Matthew will check with James and ensure 583 is on the agenda. Clem commented that issues with the 583 field is something that III should be interested in addressing as more shared prints like MI-SPI are going to run into this issue. A discussion then ensued regarding who was the most suitable individual at III to speak to about this issue.
ii. Local Holding Record OCLC Tool testing
This had taken a ‘backburner’ for Sara whilst she waited for the MSCS Project Team to further discuss if & how MSCS libraries are going to be using the OCLC Shared Print Symbol.
c. OCLC Shared Print Symbol
i. ILLiad satellite library fee & ILL Testing – use of two symbols on items
Matthew introduced this agenda item with an apology in advance if things got complicated because the discussions regarding the symbol had gone in many different directions.
At the last MSCS Directors Council meeting on December 7th, 2012 there had been vocal opposition to the $1,200 annual satellite fee for using the symbol in ILLiad. After mentioning the opposition in a Tweet, Matthew received an email from Bill Carney s (OCLC’s Shared Print Community Liaison Officer) requesting a meeting to discuss MSCS issues with the fee. Clem, Sara, Deb and Matthew spoke with Bill and Katie Birch from Atlas in December regarding the fee. Katie argued that it would be unfair to other members to allow MSCS libraries to piggy back on other libraries memberships. Clem commented that the piggy backing Katie referred to was the satellite fees charged for adding branch libraries. However, in wanting to implement the symbol this is not what MSCS libraries (who are already ILLiad members) are trying to do; yet MSCS would still be expected in this financial model to pay the fee anyway. Although Bill claimed to understand MSCS issues Katie would not budge. Clem and Matthew agreed that MSCS had made no real progress as a result of this meeting. MSCS representatives also raised their opposition to the satellite fee at OCLC ALA Sessions.
OCLC have argued that to avoid the fee libraries could use OCLC WorldCat Resource Sharing (WRS) instead of ILLiad. Gene commented that both of these are OCLC products. With the help of ILL representatives at Bowdoin in particular Guy Salander and Greg Curtis at UMaine Matthew has been making the case for why using WRS instead of ILLiad would have a negative effect on ILL workflow. Guy produced an excellent comparative summary of ILLiad vs. WRS which Sara submitted to Bill Carney. Matthew commented that they had not received much feedback from OCLC regarding this summary.
Guy who has agreed to test the ILL implications of the shared print has had separate conversations with Atlas representatives regarding the symbol. Guy was told that there was a satellite fee, but instead of the $1,200 originally quoted to Sara it was only $750 added to the annual license agreement. After checking with Bill (who at first could not account for the discrepancy) Sara found out that Bowdoin can negotiate directly with Atlas for a satellite license given that they negotiated a contract prior to OCLC’s contract with Atlas.
In light of this reduction, Matthew asked the Directors whether they were opposed to the principle of the fee or just the $1,200 amount. Gene responded that he was opposed to the principle, but perhaps if it had been a one-off fee he might have been more willing to pay. As it stands Gene would not support purchasing the symbol whether it was $1,200 or $750 particularly as he is having to make similar cost saving elsewhere by cancelling journal subscriptions. Clem commented that he understood Gene’s concerns and that MSCS representatives had been making their opposition to the fee known to OCLC.
Issues with the shared print symbol took an interesting turn last week with Sara’s idea of avoiding the fee by having two symbols for each item and making the shared print symbol non-requestable for ILL and leaving the other holding as is. Sara presented her ideas to the Project Team at their meeting on March 13th. Some potential issues were identified with taking this approach.
1. It is not necessarily within OCLC guidelines for shared print.
2. Two holdings on each bib record could mean reporting it twice and make for some unusual collections analysis reporting.
3. Worries about MSCS libraries becoming non-supplier for shared print items.
Taking each issue separately:
1. OCLC report that the symbol is not their ideal long-term solution – they want to be able to have flip and say this is a shared print item. If that is the case then MSCS won’t have to use symbols in the long-term.
Sara, Matthew and Bill Carney from OCLC spoke about this last week and whilst Bill was not keen on MSCS taking this approach, it is not forbidden and there have been precedents set where one item is shared print and another is not. Bill is going to speak to Constance Malpas and Lizanne Payne to get their opinions on this as well.
2. In terms of issues regarding putting half of collections in a non-requestable status: It appeared from Deb and Greg’s testing that the double symbols were for the same item, or at least the same item was immediately available from the same institution under another symbol. In ILLiad the BBH iteration of the holding was still requestable, and the BBHSP iteration was grayed out. In worldcat.org, again the BBHSP iteration showed no holdings associated with the symbol and the screen actually tells the user that “holdings may be set at the main library level in WorldCat” – which they are.
3. In terms of double counting of items. Deb met with Greg Curtis to test the implications of having two symbols and was not sure that holdings are double counted if the materials are made non-requestable.
Clem commented that this would not be popular with OCLC because their figures for collection sizes would be way out. Should MSCS decide to take this approach and others followed the double counting of items could become a significant issue for OCLC. Clem was also worried that for patrons it would look like there were two copies, but Deb commented it wouldn’t really because only one would show as requestable.
Matthew commented that the other frustrating part about the symbol and the fee is that it does not reflect how shared print items will be treated by MSCS libraries. For Matthew this was first brought home by a presentation from Lizanne Payne at the PAN session in Seattle where she went over the reasons for needing the symbol and fee:
• Shared print items circulate differently for example, in-library use only and circulate only to shared print partners.
• Separate symbols allow definition of different policies in OCLC Policies Directory, but will require separate processing queues, which is why the satellite fee is required for all ILLiad users.
• Share print items are usually low usage so using the ‘easy web interface’ in Worldcat Resource Sharing will not be problematic.
Clem commented that he did not agree with these reasons for why the symbol and fee are required because the MSCS items will not circulate differently. The only reason why MSCS requires the symbol is to disclose their shared print holdings to the library community, which is in line with the recommendation of the OCLC’s Print Archives Disclosure report. Items that have MSCS retention agreements associated with them are not going have different ILL workflows. Matthew brought this up with Bill last week and Bill admitted he had not understood that MSCS items were not going have different ILL workflows. Bill is going to speak again to Katie Birch from Atlas/OCLC and see if the fact that MSCS items won’t lend differently will change the pricing.
Matthew stated that he believed the idea of having two symbols for each item was both an innovative and good short-term solution to MSCS’s objective to disclose retention & preservation commitments. Matthew asked the Directors their opinion.
Clem commented that it could be a short-term solution to avoid the fee, but still disclose MSCS retention & preservation commitments. Deb commented that perhaps there is no solution that meets MSCS needs and that this fact along with MSCS investigations could be reported to IMLS. Barbara commented that it would look confusing for patrons, but perhaps might be a short-term solution. Joyce expressed concern how short-term an option it would be.
Matthew asked the Directors if the only reason why MSCS would require the symbol is to disclose MSCS retention & preservation commitments. Clem responded that it was the only reason why MSCS required the symbol. Clem was also more worried about disclosure in MaineCat for smaller Maine libraries that would look there first – rather than OCLC’s WorldCat which most libraries in Maine are not members of. Gene commented that priorities for disclosure of retention decisions should be to the Maine community first and only nationwide if there is no method available by which MSCS can do at low to no additional cost – this might be solely an item to report in the final MSCS summary, rather than something the partners were able to act on other than investigate it.
d. HathiTrust
i. Consortial & individual membership price quotes
At the last MSCS Directors Council meeting on December 7th there were discussions regarding becoming consortial (as opposed to individual) members of the HathiTrust. Since then Matthew has been discussing with Jeremy York at the HathiTrust membership requirements with the goal of getting a price quote. Sara was able to complete a data pull of unique OCLC numbers which was sent to Jeremy who was then able to provide MSCS with a pricing quote. Matthew had circulated the quotes prior to the meeting and also provided copies at the meeting.
There are 10 quotes in total: 8 individual quotes for MSCS partners, 1 consortium made up of all 8 MSCS libraries, and 1 consortium containing only the academic libraries. Matthew had Jeremy provide the academic quote because it is unlikely the publics could meet the authentication requirements of membership.
The total cost for consortial membership for all 8 MSCS partner libraries would be $19,084, a portion of which would be paid per library who participates.
The Directors were extremely pleased with the consortium quote particularly when compared with the individual membership quotes. A discussion then ensued regarding HathiTrust’s efforts to attract smaller players like MSCS.
Judy reported that Bowdoin IT and HathiTrust had been discussing authentication requirements and that the HathiTrust does definitely require members implement Shibboleth. Therefore Bowdoin are going to be implementing Shibboleth.
The quotes generated a lot of discussion amongst the Directors. Some of the Directors were still unsure of the benefits of joining HathiTrust and being able to download material rather just being able to view it, they wanted to know what material is accessible (particularly as a consortium), the implications of only some of the MSCS libraries joining and the possibilities of ILL of HathiTrust items between partners. Linda asked whether HathiTrust membership was something that would include the State Library as well as the public libraries. The Directors agreed that the State Library as well as publics should be included, but there are authentication issues which make access unlikely (see below for more details). A discussion then ensued regarding how patrons at public libraries would probably get the most benefit from the in-copyright material available in HathiTrust.
Judy asked whether the HathiTrust could be used for MSCS libraries own digital content? Clem responded that the HathiTrust would be a good preserver of digital collections, but that the availability of this service needs confirming with them.
Matthew asked the Directors the likelihood of their libraries becoming members in the MSCS grant period. Gene responded that Bates has got people looking at HathiTrust membership and whether there is demand for access. Judy responded that Bowdoin hope to be ready by July 1st and that there is faculty interest in joining HathiTrust Clem responded that Colby have already implemented Shibboleth and so are ready to become members. Joyce responded that she had spoken to Dick Thompson the UMaine Chief Information Officer about the progress of implementing Shibboleth at UMaine and that he was due to meet that day (March 28th) with John Grover in UMaine Enterprise Computing and Application Services. Dick will use this meeting as a chance to discuss progress and what can be done to speed things up. Joyce also mentioned to Dick the name of the company Colby used to implement Shibboleth.
The Directors compiled questions regarding HathiTrust membership, which Matthew will send Jeremy York to answer:
1. Does membership give any access to in-copyright titles?
2. If yes, does it match our print-owned title list only?
3. If yes, does a consortial membership, e.g. Maine, give us access to in-copyright titles owned by the consortium as a whole, or does each library have access only to its own titles (access to all 1,088,051 unique IC titles across consortium vs. individual library IC counts).
4. With consortial membership we have been discussing, can any library in the group contribute digital content?
5. If so, is the “Maine consortium” as a single entity the contributor, or a library? In other words must any content come from 1 entity or may it potentially come from any of the 8 members?
6. Can patrons of members conduct data-mining of HathiTrust? (Beyond existing available public search options). Is this is an additional cost/service?
7. Is walk-in accessibility available at consortial member libraries?
ii. Authentication issues
See above.
iii. Implementation investigations
Sara Amato has agreed to help the MSCS Project Team with its investigations into how to actually implement HathiTrust records into MSCS partner library catalogs.
It became clear when looking at Sara’s work that there is a difference between just having links to view HathiTrust and actually allowing patrons to download copies. To meet the requirements of the grant MSCS needs to show that partner libraries are delivering both E-book-On-Demand & Print-On-Demand in MaineCat which is going to involve loading records from HathiTrust into a catalog. However, one cannot loads records directly into MaineCat so James has suggested that the best place for HathiTrust records is Solar. The HathiTrust would be treated as just another library. The Project Team have also been discussing how to make HathiTrust items discoverable and the ILL implications of HathiTrust membership; how items will be requested and delivered to patrons. The type of membership MSCS libraries decide to choose will obviously affect how HathiTrust is implemented as well.
The many questions Directors still have regarding HathiTrust membership reinforces the importance of Jeremy York’s visit to Maine in May. Jeremy will discuss in part what benefits libraries get from membership and how the records can be used. He will be presenting at both the MSCS meetings on Thursday 23rd May and the Maine InfoNet Conference on the 24th May.
Judy asked Matthew whether he was suggesting that MSCS waits until Jeremy’s visit before asking him questions (see above). Matthew responded that he will send Jeremy the questions before then, but the Directors agreed that May was not that long away, so they would be willing to wait until then to speak to Jeremy in more detail than email conversations allow.
David asked Matthew to explain how HathiTrust membership fits in with the objectives of MSCS as both he and his staff are confused. Matthew responded that a goal of MSCS is to look at whether digital surrogates in large-scale digital collections like the HathiTrust can be relied upon instead of print copies. MSCS also want to test the demand for E-book-On-Demand. To achieve these goals MSCS libraries would need to become members of the HathiTrust, so patrons can access electronic books on demand.
e. IMLS report submissions
i. Budget Change Justification Report
After a lengthy process the Budget Change Justification Report was submitted to IMLS in December, 2012. Matthew only submitted those budget areas which met IMLS requirements for approved changes. These were using partner contributions originally intended for purchasing an Espresso Book Machine to pay for instead collections analysis tools. Matthew also had to report that one of the Advisory Board could not accept stipends. Matthew commented that the extra work he had done on the budget had not gone to waste as it has helped him plan for future spending. Matthew now has monthly meetings with Susan Clement, UMaine Fogler Library Financial Manager to compare actual sending vs. budget.
The report was submitted directly to Chuck Thomas who approved it with the understanding that partner library contributions would not be less than originally committed. Matthew reported that the increases in the in-kind contributions of staff’s salaries & benefits for MSCS partner library representatives meant MSCS will actually be over its originally matching amount.
Matthew also made the Directors aware that Mike Hastings from ORSP had informed Joyce that the federal sequester cuts would begin on February 28th. Matthew commented that as MSCS hasn’t heard anything from IMLS hopefully that meant it was not affected. If MSCS were to see its funding cut it would be 8.2% each year.
ii. Interim Performance Report
The Interim Performance Report Matthew presented at the December 7th Directors Council meeting was submitted on deadline to IMLS. As with the Budget Change Justification Report (see above) Matthew had to go through ORSP to submit it which led to delays in identifying the individual responsible for submission. ORSP received confirmation of receipt, but no feedback. Matthew sent a copy to the Advisory Board to update them on MSCS progress and posted a copy on the website.
iii. Interim Financial Report
The Interim Financial Report is generated and submitted by ORSP using data from the UMaine financial system. Susan Clement and Matthew had been told by ORSP that they were aware this report was due by the end of December and that they would see it got submitted, but unfortunately they did not.
Deb, as Project Principle Investigator, received a delinquent report notification from IMLS in late January. It then took about two weeks before it was actually submitted by ORSP. Matthew commented that he had difficulty again tracking down someone responsible and even getting a copy of the report. Matthew was told it had been submitted, but when he checked with IMLS they hadn’t received it. It was only after getting Joyce and Mike Hasting (Director of ORSP) involved that it was finally submitted on February 11th. Matthew confirmed that he had received notification of receipt from IMLS. Matthew still has not received an explanation for why the report was not submitted on deadline, but he will send out reminders to ORSP when the next set of reports are due. Joyce commented that she had sent a strongly worded email to Mike Hastings outlining where the process went wrong.
f. MOU
i. Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group review update
At the last Directors Council on December 7th, 2012 Directors had agreed that the MSCS Memorandum Of Understanding should be presented at the Maine InfoNet Board Meeting on February 6th, 2013. At the meeting it was decided that the Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group should review the MOU and reword specific parts related to the MSCS governance structure.
Matthew asked Barbara, who sits on the Maine InfoNet Board Bylaw Group with Steve Podgajny whether she had anything to report. The Bylaws Group hopes to have some recommendations for the next Maine InfoNet Board Meeting on April 3rd, 2013.
g. Marketing
i. Article features
MSCS has been getting some great exposure in different publications and feeds.
Maine Policy Review article
Matthew thanked Joyce who had asked him to submit a side bar article on MSCS for the forthcoming library edition of Maine Policy Review.
Library Journal
Mike Kelley, Editor In Chief of the Library Journal contacted him regarding a potential article he wanted to write on MSCS. Mike sent the Project Team questions about the project. Matthew commented that he had sent quite a lengthy response excepting it to be trimmed down for the article, but actually a lot of it was kept in. Matthew has received positive feedback regarding the article.
The Directors agreed that the article was good publicity for MSCS and Project Team members. Judy commented that MSCS had also featured in the Library Journal Hotline and will send Matthew a copy.
Matthew will also be participating in a Library Journal webinar panel in June on data-driven collection analysis.
ii. News feeds and newsletters
As a result of the Library Journal article MSCS has featured in a number of library news feeds and the University of Maine press release.
iii. Social media
To meet the grant goal of promoting the work of MSCS Matthew has used MSCS’s article features, IFLA Conference Paper acceptance (see below) and SCS collections analysis work as a chance to tweet, add more website updates and post on the Maine libraries listserve MELIBS. Gretchen Gfeller at Fogler Library is using updates provided by Matthew to post about MSCS on the Fogler Facebook page.
2. Conferences & Events
a. Modern Language Association Conference – ‘How Many Copies is Enough?: Too Many? Libraries and Shared Monograph Archives’ session
Clem reported on his attendance at the Modern Language Association Conference – ‘How Many Copies is Enough?: Too Many? Libraries and Shared Monograph Archives’ session. The session was chaired by a mixture of librarians and faculty.
Clem found Professor Andrew M. Stauffer’s (University of Virginia, Department of English) part of the session really interesting. Andrew’s area of expertise is 19th century reading habits and he is looking at what people write in books, not the books themselves. If you downsize annotated books you might be losing some richness found in individual copies. Clem also raised the issue of the generic item descriptions in OCLC, which do not make reference to individual differences.
Into the 20th century there was more uniformity in printing which resulted in less interesting examples. Therefore with books from the 20th century onwards there is less concern with downsizing and sharing copies.
The Directors agreed that this sounded like an interesting session and that MSCS libraries should take these issues in consideration during the collections analysis process. Gene commented that he personally has seen great variances between different copies of the same item.
b. ALA Midwinter Shared Print sessions – Print Archive Network, OCLC & SCS
PAN
Matthew, Sara, Clem, and Joyce attended the Print Archive Network (PAN) Session at ALA. Matthew commented that it was interesting to see the growing amount and type of shared print projects, also to hear similar concerns with OCLC’s WorldCat Analysis Tool, and have updates on the OCLC WorldShare Analytics Collection Evaluation tool from Kathryn Harnish.
MSCS representatives did not present at PAN, but the MSCS IMLS Interim Performance Report was included amongst the PAN project update reports.
OCLC
Matthew reported that most of his time at ALA Midwinter was spent in OCLC focus groups sessions with OCLC Shared Print and marketing representatives. The aim of these sessions was to hear attendee’s opinions on shared print rather than hearing OCLC’s own ideas. Matthew commented that it was interesting to hear the thoughts of other projects, especially as many were also concerned with the implementation and consequences of the shared print symbol and 583 field. However, most of the projects represented had either chosen not to implement the symbol and/or 583 field, or hadn’t got to that stage yet.
Matthew also discussed the dividing lines between OCLC & SCS with them working together, but having two seemingly competing products Matthew commented that Kathryn had described the relationship as ‘coopetition’ which was a new word for the Directors. Clem responded that OCLC owns a small share in SCS.
SCS & OCLC Session
Matthew reported that he also attended a joint presentation from Rick Lugg (SCS) and Kathryn Harnish regarding their own respective collections analysis tools. Matthew commented that it was interesting to see what functionality OCLC’s WorldCat Analysis Tool will have once released. Matthew also learnt that OCLC had been conducting a pilot project with libraries testing the new product. Matthew was able see more of the pilot project work in an OCLC webinar he attended in February.
c. WebWise Conference – MSCS representatives feedback
Deb and Matthew attended the IMLS WebWise Conference in Baltimore. Attendance at WebWise is a grant requirement. Matthew presented at the lightning lunch, which was 3 slides in 3 minutes. Matthew and Deb also saw demos from current IMLS funded projects and had a session where they developed a grant proposal.
Matthew commented that, in his opinion, you would get the most benefit from WebWise if you were going with a new project idea in mind because you got to network with IMLS and other potential partner organizations. Deb commented that in hindsight she wished she had attended the pre-conference workshops because they covered interesting subjects, but had only found about them at short notice.
d. Directors Council Meeting & Advisory Board & Jeremy York Presentations, May 23rd 2013, 10am-1:45pm, Robbins Room in Roberts Union, Colby College
Based on feedback from the last MSCS Directors Council meeting on December 7th, 2012 Matthew organized more substantive time with the Advisory Board for their visit on May 23rd, 2013. The next MSCS Directors Council Meeting will start the day off. This meeting will be followed by a short break when the MSCS Collections Management/Technical Services representatives will join the Directors for presentations from the Advisory Board and Jeremy York over a boxed lunch.
In terms of presentation subjects, as it stands Bob Kieft is covering issues with transitioning from using print to electronic resources, Lizanne Payne is giving an update on shared print projects happening throughout the US, and Constance is covering OCLC’S shared print management program particularly use of 583 and the shared print symbol. However, the Board are meeting at the end of March month and may decide to cover different subjects.
Those Directors not part of the Project Team are free to leave after the presentations because following another short break will be a joint MSCS Collections Management/Technical Services meeting.
In terms of social time with the Advisory Board Matthew was thinking of a meal back in Bangor where the Advisory Board and Jeremy are staying on the night of Thursday May 23rd. This unfortunately will limit the people who are able to attend to only those based in the Bangor area, but the Directors understood with timing issues this was the most sensible option.
e. Maine InfoNet Collection Summit, May 24th, University of Maine Orono
Constance Malpas from the MSCS Advisory Board and Jeremy York from the HathiTrust and University of Michigan will also be presenting the day after the MSCS meetings on May 24th at the Maine InfoNet Collection Summit.
Jeremy will provide some general background of what HathiTrust is and why it exists and what it wants to accomplish. Matthew commented that this will be a lot more of a general discussion of the HathiTrust compared with the specific MSCS issues he will be discussing at the MSCS meetings. Constance will give a general overview of the research she is currently doing to understand the print world including with public libraries.
f. Planned MSCS conference presentations
i. Timberline Conference, Mt. Hood, May 19th, 2013
Sara Amato had her presentation proposal accepted by The Acquisitions Institute at Timberline Lodge for the 2013 Timberline Conference. Sara will be presenting on Sunday May 19th. The grant has paid for Sara’s registration (which includes meals) and she will submit a reimbursement claim for two night’s accommodation.
The Directors agreed that this was a good opportunity to promote MSCS and that the Timberline Lodge is an excellent location for a conference.
ii. ALA Annual ALCTS Preconference, Chicago, June 27th, 2013
Matthew, Clem and Sara will be presenting at the ALCTS Preconference event on June 27th organized by Rick Lugg.
iii. ALA Annual Print Archive Network, Chicago, June 28th, 2013
Clem will present at the next PAN meeting on June 28th at ALA Annual in Chicago during the featured projects section.
iv. IFLA Annual Conference Acquisitions & Collection Development Section, Singapore, August 17-23, 2013
The paper Matthew and Clem submitted was accepted by the IFLA Acquisitions & Collection Development Section jury. Matthew provided the Directors with copies of the MSCS paper proposal. The MSCS paper is titled “Together we are stronger: A cooperative approach to managing print collections.”
The Directors agreed that this was impressive achievement both for MSCS and Clem & Matthew personally. Matthew commented that the IFLA Acquisitions & Collection Development Section had 42 papers submitted and they had to go through multiple rounds before they decided on the successful five.
Clem and Matthew need to submit a paper before the May 1st translation deadline. They will then both present at the conference in August.
v. NELA Annual Conference, Portland, October 21st, 2013
Matthew appreciated Joan Campbell at Bowdoin for putting him in contact with Jason Soohoo at NELA regarding presenting at the 2013 NELA Conference in Portland. Jason agreed that they would like to hear from MSCS and scheduled a 75 minutes slot at the NELA Conference for MSCS. Matthew and Deb will be delivering the presentation on behalf of MSCS.