Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
July 10, 2013
Colby College Miller Library Conference Room
2:00 – 4:00 pm
Attendees: Sara Amato, Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins
Absentees: Barbara McDade
1. Project Updates
a. Collections Analysis
i. HathiTrust count discrepancies
Sara’s investigations suggest the discrepancies between the counts for MSCS library HathiTrust counts was a result of HathiTrust counting multi volume sets as multiple matches, e.g a three volume encyclopedia was counted as three matches. Sara reported that titles go on and off HathiTrust’s lists of available titles, so there is always going to be an imperfect match.
Sara still stands by her opinion that she would be leery of removing a last copy of a title from Maine based on it being public domain (PD) in HathiTrust (unless perhaps it was pre 1923).
Also, for future comparison with the HathiTrust, SCS will expand the definition of what they count as being in-copyright to include the cc* rights.
ii. Scenario One – “Need Further Examination” further steps
Following the previous Project Team meeting, Deb produced a document which included suggested areas of focus and data as a starting place for reviewing titles in both the “Needs Further Examination” (NFE) category in Scenario One, titles held by three plus libraries, journals & series and balancing the load of retention commitments. Matthew shared the document with the MSCS Collection Development Committee and requested they review the content and make their own additions and amendments.
Matthew requested the Project Team reviews the document at the meeting before he sends the work request to SCS.
Clem commented that the Project Team needs to decide what MSCS means by sampling when it asks for them from SCS. Clem believes the concern for many of the academic partners is that they are going to be stuck retaining ‘old textbooks’. Matthew and Sara remarked that in Scenario One there were already some ‘old textbooks’ which will be retained because they met the retention criteria. Clem suggested that the samples could be filtered to show the work of particular publishers, which are considered to be outdated. But that MSCS also needs to be aware that there may be certain cases where historical textbooks are considered retention-worthy. There may be categories of titles MSCS chooses not to retain because they are available in the HathiTrust. In all cases MSCS needs to document the reasons why decisions were made. The Project Team recognized that some MSCS libraries are keen to weed their collections and would not be happy if they were expected to retain hard copies of titles available in the HathiTrust. A discussion then ensued regarding how to conduct sampling, including whether it should be random and how it should be sorted.
The Project Team agreed that rather than samples, a complete spreadsheet list of titles with bib data should be requested from SCS. The lists should be reviewed first by Clem, Deb, and Matthew before being presented to the Collection Development Committee along with some recommendations and examples which can be used to focus discussions. The lists should include bibliographic data so the items can be sorted in a number of different ways to identify trends. Items could be sorted by subject, topic and publisher. Matthew commented that the review should be conducted in a timely manner to avoid delaying the Collection Development meeting any further.
Starting with those titles in Scenario One with zero circulations, a discussion ensued regarding why, if MSCS are making retention decisions at the title level, should copies of titles appear on both the “Committed to Review” and “Needs Further Examination” lists. The Project Team agreed that MSCS needs to define and agree with SCS what it means by circulated and whether it is at the title level. It appeared that if one copy circulated and another didn’t then the one that didn’t circulated is not on the “Committed to Retain” category. Commitments should be made at the title level so “Needs Further Examination” titles which match existing “Commitment to Retain” titles should automatically be retained.
NOTE: Since the meeting SCS confirmed that the only factor that will cause two items from a title-holding to be split between the two categories (“Committed to Retain” and “Needs Further Examination”) is the special collections designation which is applied at the item level using the item location code. All the other factors, including circulation, are applied at the title-holding level. SCS will split titles that are in the “Committed to Retain” category from the “Needs Further Examination “list.
The Project Team agreed to request spreadsheet lists of titles for the following Needs Further Examination sub-categories in Scenario One:
· Titles not held electronically.
· Only digitized in the Internet Archive (not in HathiTrust). The Project Team agreed that MSCS libraries would not be willing to rely on titles only digitized in the Internet Archive because there is no audit check like with the HathiTrust. Titles which fall into this category will most likely be committed to retain. Deb suggested perhaps committing to retaining just one copy. Matthew commented that currently MSCS are not totally sure how many items fall into this category because the exact figure is not included in SCS’s charts.
· HathiTrust Public Domain titles. The Project Team agreed that for pre-1923 titles there seems to be little reason why if they are widely held and have circulated zero times they should be committed to retain. However, for post-1923 titles Sara commented that she would be wary of relying on HathiTrust copies alone because titles go on and off HathiTrust’s lists of available titles, and that perhaps as Deb suggests at least one copy should still be retained.
· HathiTrust In-Copyright items. Clem commented that there may be categories of old textbooks which libraries agree do not need to be retained.
iii. Widely held titles – focus of analysis
Also included in Deb’s document (see above) were suggested areas of focus and data as a starting place for reviewing titles which are held by 3 or more MSCS libraries (1,064,333 titles).
New summary sheet
The Project Team agreed SCS should revise their summary to give counts of only pre-2003 because MSCS are only analyzing titles in this category and pre-1923 titles to identify PD titles. The new summary will also have a HathiTrust public domain column with the percentage for each circulation count, e.g. of titles with 1 circulation, x% are in the public domain HathiTrust group.
New slide to guide circulation data-driven retention commitments
The chart SCS included in slide 58 of their Scenario Development presentation was very useful in developing Scenario One.
The Project Team agreed that they would like SCS to update the slide and change from “circulating titles published and acquired before 2000” to “before 2003,” and extend it to include zero circulations in last 10 years, 4-9 circulations, and 10+ circulations. The Project Team would also like to see the numbers for those titles that have zero circulations in the last 10 years in addition to the zero circulations total column on slide 58. It might help to explain a potential scenario where this could be used, e.g. (0 circ last 10 yrs + total circ<4 + Hathi digitized IC or PD might NOT get a retention statement, or we might retain only 1, even if held by 6).
The Project Team discussed how many copies should be retained. Joan Campbell (Bowdoin) had suggested in Deb’s document that perhaps for the 3 or fewer circulations MSCS keeps 1 copy (depending on the new slide recent circulation data mentioned above), for 4-9 circulations MSCS keeps 2 copies, and for 10-20 circulations MSCS keep 3 copies. Christine Coombs (Bangor Public) had suggested perhaps keeping 2 copies for 3 or fewer circulations, because of condition and loss, unless in PD. Christine agreed with Joan’s other keeps, but felt it would be good to put MSCS agreements to the test. Lanny Lumbert (University of Southern Maine) had asked if there is any reason or way to deal with revised editions. An older edition of a title may have lots of circulation, perhaps none recently – and is that a justification for keeping say 3 copies?
The Project Team agreed that MSCS should wait until MSCS have the revised slide before deciding how many copies should be retained.
Clem commented that geographical locations should be taken into consideration when allocating retention responsibility. Deb asked what this should be compared to. Clem responded when assigning who keeps what copies This repeats what he already said -assigning who keeps what = allocating retention responsibility. James asked how much geography should matter when you consider Maine’s robust ILL and statewide delivery service. Clem responded that if there were not such disparities in loan periods between Colby, Bates & Bowdoin (CBB) and the other MSCS partners then perhaps geography would not be an issue. Clem believes their relying on non-CBB copies would have political ramifications for them because of complaints from faculty. The Project Team agreed that it is likely that if CBB own a title one of them will automatically retain it. Matthew commented that many of the titles being considered as part of MSCS have low circulation rates anyway, so the chance of faculty requesting the items is remote.
Last circulation after 5/31/2009 (Within last four years)
In previous discussions with SCS one of the libraries had asked to see “Last circulation after 5/31/2009 (Within last four years)”. Deb had asked in her document how the Collection Development folks think that data would be used to make retention commitments and whether it needs to be cross-referenced to other data to be useful (e.g. library type, total holdings, publication date). E.g. would any title holding that had circulation within 4 years and was in a public library get a retention commitment?
Clem commented that high circulation material may not mean public libraries definitely want to retain titles because they won’t want to retain ‘best sellers’ which only circulated widely when first published.
There were no answers from Collection Development Committee members, but the issue will be discussed at their next meeting.
Protected items
For “Maine” subject protected titles items Deb asked whether MSCS should do the same in Scenario Two as was done in Scenario One (retain even if no circulation), regardless of how many title-holdings there are, or does MSCS “Commit to Retain” only two copies? Does MSCS say one retention copy will always be Maine State Library, if owned there, and one will be elsewhere? Joan Campbell had commented that MSCS should say more than that. Maybe 4? Joan thought that these are the kinds of books most likely to be lost, and many may be the hardest to replace…although in this group there’s a big difference between a book on Malaga Island (may be impossible to replace) and a novel by Stephen King (eternally replaceable). Christine Coombs suggested perhaps MSL and 4 other copies. Clem asked why MSCS would make a different decision to the one made in Scenario One.
The Project Team agreed to ask SCS to produce a report showing those protected items where there are fewer than 10 holding in OCLC WorldCat. A discussion then ensued regarding the reliability of OCLC’s data when the majority of Maine’s libraries are not OCLC members. There is a good chance many of the titles in this category are held by libraries outside of the MSCS group. Clem commented that some of the partners might choose not to retain all of their protected titles.
Zero-circulation in last 10 years
At the last Project Team meeting in June it was agreed that a column with zero-circulations in the last 10 years should be added to SCS spreadsheets. Deb had asked in her document whether MSCS is going to be taking certain actions based on this data. Deb’s example was zero circulation in 10 years + total circulation across all MSCS copies <# + HathiTrust IC = “Commit to Retain” only 1 copy). Joan had commented that this was probably the case. Clem commented that the public libraries should be interested in this.
Rarity in OCLC
The Project Team next discussed titles that are rare in OCLC. For Scenario One (1-2 holdings) MSCS “Committed to Retain” any title held by fewer than 10 OCLC libraries. Deb commented that she thinks MSCS should do that here as well. Joan and Christine both agreed that MSCS should do this.
Previously the Project Team had suggested MSCS should “Commit to Retain” 2 holdings minimum if there are fewer than 50 holdings in OCLC, regardless of circulation or other data. Joan had asked whether that overrides Scenario One where MSCS said fewer than 10 in OCLC. Christine had asked whether MSCS wants to base decisions on OCLC holdings that may change given the number of libraries that will be doing these shared collection projects and will also be removing copies. Christine believes that it is a potential problem for the public library to rely on circulating copies owned by other libraries or libraries that do not lend as far as access to items for our patrons.
The Project Team agreed that this issue should be reviewed by the MSCS Collection Development Committee.
Subject/LC/Dewey data
The MSCS Project Team had requested that SCS provides it with subject/LC/Dewey data. Thus far this data has not been used in collections analysis activities. Deb asked in her document how MSCS and in particular the publics (who were keen to have this data included) will use this in making retention commitments. She asked what numbers or charts that cross-reference subject data with other data like circulation, number of OCLC holdings, etc. might be needed.
Clem responded that subjects will be used when allocating retention responsibilities once MSCS decides how many copies need to be retained. Certain MSCS partners may be assigned responsibility for retaining particular subject areas. Clem went on to discuss how even if MSCS decides only two copies need to be retained a MSCS library might choose to make an additional retention commitment. For example, Bowdoin may choose to retain Arctic Studies material even if other libraries have it. Matthews asked whether these commitments would still be disclosed in the same way. Clem responded that they would still need to follow shared print protocol.
James commented that he could see the need for an appeals process for situations where libraries have been assigned retention responsibilities which they don’t want to commit to. The Project Team agreed that this was a good idea. Clem mentioned that the MSCC MOU includes the provision for Collection Holders and Collection Builders who agree to ingest material on behalf of other holders.
The Project Team agreed that the spread of who keeps and who has the option to discard is a big issue. Clem suggested that Colby will probably retain proportionally more than other MSCS partners because of the available space in its storage facility.
iv. Journal retention commitments
Journals
Deb explained her idea that MSCS libraries agree to eliminate commitments for certain classes of journal publications first e.g. complete runs digitized by publishers or aggregators participating in Portico, where one or more MSCS libraries owns the online backfiles and are Portico members. Both Joan and Lanny had commented in Deb’s document that they agreed with this approach. JSTOR titles are an example.
Deb also suggested that MSCS focuses on what is important to retain:
· Protected categories – Maine serials
· Rare in OCLC (defined how? Held by fewer than 100 libraries? Note: hard to rely on a really low number (e.g. <10) of holding libraries in OCLC for journals since some may hold only one issue of a serial rather than a complete run
· No digitized or microfilmed copies in OCLC
· Any other “at risk” groups of serials?
The publishers should have standard lists which Sara could compare holding against and identify which MSCS holdings are not in there and not preserved. The MSCS libraries could then think about their value and whether they are preserved elsewhere. Clem commented that MSCS should look at the work Western Regional Storage Trust (WEST) and the Five Colleges have done. MSCS needs to decide whether it wants to do the same as WEST and have Gold, Silver, Bronze levels for risk. For JSTOR titles MSCS could look at commitments included in the CRL’s Print Archive Preservation Registry. Clem went on to comment that there are no Association of Research Libraries part of MSCS, so the focus is different in terms of what is retained.
Deb is aware of University of Maine journals which fit into the rare category and is sure other MSCS libraries have some too.
Sara responded that she thinks she could look at different levels of holdings, but it might not be totally accurate. Also, identifying journals that have been digitized would be trickier.
Matthew asked Deb how she wanted the data sorted. Deb responded that it should be sorted primarily by publisher.
Series
Series are often mixed in with journals. Sara thought that perhaps they could be identified by location because they are shelved differently. Also, series don’t always include the item records so they can be identified that way. Series records do include encoding level ‘S’.
Deb asked if there is a way to identify Maine published series. Sara responded that there is a publication location. The Project Team agreed that they wanted to see title level holding data not holdings. Series should then be sorted by publisher and include publisher location.
v. OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool – proposal update
Matthew has submitted to Meghan Hopkins (OCLC) MSCS’s requested changes to their proposal for group access to the OCLC WorldCat Collection Evaluation tool. Matthew has so far not received a response from Meghan.
vi. Access to SCS database
As agreed in the contract with SCS, they are going to provide MSCS access to collections data they compiled as part of the project. Sara reported that SCS will provide this data once they re-run HathiTrust matches (see above).
Prior to the meeting, Sara had asked James about using PostgreSQL to host the data. James reported that unfortunately since this conversation he had found that using PostgreSQL was not going to be as straightforward as he had originally thought.
James and Sara agreed that they would follow-up regarding this issue.
b. Loading & display of retention information in catalogs
i. MaineCat
Sara reported that Albie Dunn (Maine InfoNet) will add the JavaScript which will be used with the OCLC WorldCat API to perform a check of OCLC and display when an item is in shared print. As this is dependent on OCLC holding’s data the retention information will obviously need to be added to OCLC first (see below) before it can be displayed in MaineCat.
Sara reported that there have been some issues with the retention lists received back from SCS in particular missing barcodes, barcodes in different fields, duplicates, bound withs, and deletes (see below for more detail).
ii. Local Catalogs
Sara reported that Portland Public and Bates have most of their commitments already in their catalogs. Sara is still reviewing and resolving issues with the retention commitment data received from SCS for the other institutions. The Project Team agreed that staff at MSCS libraries should be made aware by the MSCS Technical Services & Collection Development representatives that these retention commitments are being added and as such weeding projects should be halted (see below for more detail)
iii. OCLC WorldCat – batch loading 583 & shared print symbol
As discussed above, Sara is still troubleshooting issues with the data in the retention lists and wants to resolve these issues in the local catalogs first before beginning the process of disclosing the commitments in OCLC WorldCat.
iv. Withdrawn material
As mentioned above, during the processing of adding 583 retention commitments in local catalogs Sara and the Technical Services representatives have identified hundreds of records on the “Committed to Retain” list which have been deleted. Some of these were items which were inappropriately included in the original data sent to SCS, and therefore may be ignored.
The remaining missing items are most likely due to the fact that since February when SCS were provided with the collections data, the items have been weeded and the record deleted. Many libraries conduct weeding in the summer. However, removing items from their collections while MSCS are going through this process has several ramifications for the grant process, including:
· Libraries that have weeded a “committed to retain” title assigned to them will have to acquire and provide a replacement copy under the terms of the MSCC MOU.
· Libraries that have weeded “committed to retain” titles will have various additional technical issues to resolve when working with files of records for 583 statements (collating problem records for later action, reloading deleted MARC records, etc.).
· Worst case scenario, all copies of a “committed to retain” title might be weeded by both the assigned retaining libraries and the non-retaining libraries. This will be more of an issue as MSCS move on to committing to retain titles held by 3+ libraries.
The Maine Shared Collection Cooperative MOU is clear that libraries agree to retain and items assigned retention commitments for 15 years from date of signing. The MOU also states that “Collection Holders agree not to sell, discard, donate, or otherwise relinquish ownership or control of any of the archived materials prior to the Retention Date, except to transfer materials to a Collection Builder or with permission of the Collections and Operations Committee.” The MOU goes on to state that “Libraries are expected to follow their usual workflows and procedures for identifying, repairing, and replacing retained materials. Original artifactual copies are always preferred, but facsimiles are acceptable when necessary.”
The Project Team agreed that Matthew should contact the MSCS Collection Development and Technical Service Committees and ask them to communicate to staff at their libraries about the retention commitments going in the 583 field, and that as such weeding should be put on hold until they know which items they are going to be assigned to retain.
Sarah Campbell at Portland Public reported to Matthew that they are marking physically “Committed to retain” items and she wanted to know if the Project Team had any thoughts on the practice.
The Project Team agreed that this was not something that MSCS could expect libraries to undertake, but Matthew and James agreed that they could understand why it might be useful to see both in the 583 and physically that the item has been committed to retain. The Project Team agreed that the issue should be discussed at the next respective MSCS Collection Management and Technical Services Committee meetings.
v. Recording “Not Committed to Retain” in 583 – Advisory Board thoughts
At previous MSCS meetings the Project Team had discussed whether MSCS libraries should be recording ‘somewhere’ that items had been reviewed as part of MSCS collections analysis, but no commitment had been made to retain them.
Matthew reported that after he and Deb had spoken about this issue he had contacted the MSCS Advisory Board to ask for their opinions. They agreed if MSCS want to do this then it should be displayed locally in a note and that MSCS needs to be careful with the wording, so as to avoid confusion with “Committed to Retain” and to be specific on whether they were reviewed or not. Constance Malpas gave an example of the ‘traditional’ use of the 583 conservation not necessary and having in the ‘condition reviewed’ language some notes.
Clem asked whether MSCS should be granular with the description for example, to distinguish between materials (for example post-2003), which didn’t get considered as part of MSCS, from materials that did get reviewed, but no commitment was made to retain.
Clem wondered whether, using encoding, the wording could be different depending on the reason why it was not committed to retain. Matthew responded that this could overcomplicate things, but he did like the idea raised by James previously of recording that it was considered as part of Scenario One because one would know it fell into that criteria.
The Project Team agreed that this issue should be raised with the MSCS Technical Services and Collection Development Committees. Matthew commented that recording these non-commitments would be new ground for a shared print project.
vi. Communications with OCLC – webinar, discovery of shared print items & library spotlight program
Webinar
Some members of the MSCS Project Team had attended an OCLC webinar on June 18th featuring Bill Carney, Lizanne Payne and Constance Malpas. Matthew reported that the webinar started with a refresher from Constance on the background and uses of the 583 field and OCLC Shared Print Symbol.
Bill went over future plans at OCLC which included:
· An index for 583$f shared print program name for searching which they hope to have ready by November 2013.
· The release of their ‘collection evaluation’ tool. Matthew commented that OCLC now refer to what was previously known as ‘collection analysis’ as instead ‘collection evaluation’. Matthew went on that it was interesting to see that OCLC are starting to distinguish more between what they offer for ‘collections evaluation’ and what SCS provides which is a more tailored and in-depth service
· Bill emphasizing that they recognize OCLC’s current model of using the OCLC Shared Print symbol is not perfect.
· That OCLC are looking at making the batch loading of Local Holding Records a simpler process.
OCLC have seen print holding being set on 10,000 plus OCLC records. But worryingly for them they are seeing holdings set without LHRs.
Bill also shared some of the initial results of the shared print survey that some the MSCS libraries responded to. Matthew commented that there was nothing too earth-shattering or surprising.
Discovery of shared print items
Following the webinar Bill Carney spoke with Matthew and Sara regarding how and why they think libraries will want to discover that items have been designated as belonging to a shared print program. They discussed the need for libraries to know what commitments have already been made when reviewing their own collections. Matthew consulted Deb who was able to be a lot more specific about the types of queries likely to be run and where and what information she thought libraries would want to see returned. Matthew shared Deb’s responses with Bill.
Library Spotlight Program
Matthew and Sara also discussed with Bill OCLC’s new Library Spotlight Program via which libraries, even those not OCLC members, can claim and register their name in a library version of Yelp. Matthew commented that originally he had thought that the Program might have allowed smaller Maine libraries to register themselves and add liimited holdings information, which could have been useful for future MSCS collections analysis. Unfortunately, Bill has since informed Matthew that libraries cannot register holdings in the Program without some kind of OCLC cataloging subscription, but that there might be future developments.
Deb had noticed that the Program’s map interface had some oddities like Portland Public Library being located at Fogler Library in Orono! Deb reported this issue and met with Sharon Fitzgerald to review the Program further. While listing UMaine in the Program, they noticed that the OCLC Shared Print Symbols are not associated with MSCS library information. Sara will speak to Bill Carney about getting this issue fixed.
Matthew commented that he had been thinking of notifying Maine libraries about the existence of the Program via MELIBS. The Project Team agreed that James will produce an announcement regarding Library Spotlight Program and ask the Maine District Library Consultants to submit it to MELIBS.
vii. CRL PAPR database – register MSCS
As MSCS are now making retention commitments, Matthew got back in contact with Marie Waltz at Center for Research Libraries (who organizes with Bob Kieft the Print Archive Network (PAN) meetings) about adding MSCS to CRL’s Print Archive Preservation Registry. Matthew reported that he and Marie are currently finalizing a time to talk about this in mid-July.
Matthew and Sara briefly spoke to Marie about adding MSCS commitments at PAN and were told that CRL are not currently adding monograph commitments to the registry because they are still concentrating on journals. Marie had commented that they see OCLC as the place for registering shared print monograph holding commitments. However, MSCS can be added to PAPR as one of the current shared print project in progress. Also, as Clem commented when MSCS begins to make commitments on journals these can be added to PAPR.
c. HathiTrust
i. Implementation investigations – loading records into SOLAR, links in catalogs, inclusion of Government documents, IP access for publics & need for ILL and POD/EOD display examples
Sara presented on her investigative work into loading HathiTrust records into SOLAR. She showed her idea of inserting ‘Hathi’ in the 001 for example, hathi03967141 to stop it overlaying print records in MaineCat. The Project Team discussed the use of a separate record for electronic versions and whether that could be forced. James commented that he needs to figure out how to solve the matching 001s and hierarchy issues to prevent wiping out the existing record. James commented that ironically, usually the problem for Maine InfoNet is making sure more material matches.
Sara commented that she had been speaking to members of the MSCS Technical Services about the impact of changes from GMD vs. 33x fields might have on the HathiTrust MARC record. A training session for RDA has been organized by Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) for August 8th at the University of Maine, Wells Conference Center. Boston College updates its records annually, so Sara commented that if MSCS were to follow suit, Maine InfoNet could play around with it again in time for the next load.
Sara next showed an example of a Government Document MARC record. The Project Team agreed that Government Documents should be included in the HathiTrust record load.
Finally, Sara showed some options for 856 links in the MARC record: ‘Read online’ which would take a user to the HathiTrust website. Request Downloadable Copy’ which if required could be where patrons from Maine Shared Collections Cooperative libraries could request a downloadable copy. Another idea was having a ‘Google Book’ link for items which were digitized by Google that would take a user to the general title search where they search for downloadable copy in Google Books. Sara confirmed that only items digitized by Google will have this option. The public libraries and Maine State will be able to offer downloadable copies via IP address at their libraries (see below) Matthew asked whether ILL was still required just for those patrons not physically at the library. Clem asked why MSCS couldn’t ILL HathiTrust items. Matthew responded that he had been told by Jeremy that Google is OK with ILL among HathiTrust member libraries and that he (Jeremy) interpreted that as to mean that ILL outside of partner libraries would be against their licensing terms.
Clem expressed concern that having both a HathiTrust and Google Book link might confuse patrons for example; patrons of MSCC libraries might not realize that they can download copy using the HathiTrust link, while non-MSCC patrons (or those public and State Library patrons not physically in the library) might only go to the HathiTrust link rather than checking the Google Book link. Matthew responded that as a patron he would try the one link and if that didn’t work he would simply try the other. Matthew also felt libraries could to some extent avoid confusion by communicating to users the different options available to them. Matthew asked wasn’t there precedent for some material in MaineCat only being accessible to patrons from specific libraries. Deb responded that some material does have restricted access. Matthew commented in that sense HathiTust items are no different to some existing material in MaineCat.
Sara briefly discussed options for “Borrow a Print Copy”. For titles owned by MSCS libraries could use the OCLC number to create a link in pre-processing to MaineCat. For items not owned Sara discussed the use of a link to a form to request, where perhaps libraries would consider buying a copy a copy rather than ILL. Also, an OCLC WorldCat link could be used for patrons to find a library that did own a copy. For “Purchase a Copy” Sara discussed having links to Google Book and Amazon and for Print On Demand options.
Sara will discuss with the MSCS Technical Services Committee the display of item 856s in MaineCat, how to encode them, overlay rules in MaineCat to avoid overlaying print records, and Search Inside this Book in MaineCat options. Sara will also speak to HathiTrust about the frequency of updates.
The Project Team agreed that they would like to review Sara’s slides and think about language that could be used to explain the link options. The Project Team will again review the links at their next meeting, in time to present recommendations at the August 30, MSCS Directors Council meeting.
ii. Consortial membership & authentication issues – contract negotiations, Section 108 access and Shibboleth/InCommon installation updates
Contract negotiations
Matthew reported that after discussing the issue with Jeremy York and James they agreed that Maine InfoNet as a legal entity and responsible for overseeing Maine Shared Collections Cooperative will sign the HathiTrust consortial agreement on behalf of the MSCC libraries, but that the partner library directors will co-sign it, to make it binding for them as well.
Matthew hoped that at the August 30 MSCS Directors Council meeting the Directors will approve the agreement and be in a position to sign it.
Section 108 access
Although HathiTrust is now more comfortable with Maine InfoNet as a legal entity signing the agreement on behalf of MSCC, their legal counsel is still not willing to expand Section 108 uses of materials beyond the library that owned the material. Originally, MSCS were told that if a book at one library were brittle or missing and also out of print, they would provide access to the digital copy of the work to all of the libraries (with the understanding that the book was “held” by the consortium). However, their counsel is open to arguments that support the consortium being considered a “library” under Section 108.
To investigate this further, Matthew contacted Beck Albitz at Bates who has experience with copyright issues, but she was only aware of cases where access is extended to a single entity. Even though the CIC, for example, was involved in the Google project, they were not allowed to have access to Michigan’s content in HathiTrust because, while they were a consortium, they were not considered a single institution. Becky recommended that Matthew see if UMaine’s law school has an intellectual property faculty member who might be willing to help. Matthew contacted Harlan Onsrud who is on the UMaine Digital Commons Committee and is also a member of the Faculty Senate Library Advisory Committee. Unfortunately, Harlan replied that he was not comfortable with responding to Matthew’s inquiry because he is not a licensed attorney in Maine and that any advice he may give may construed as legal advice. He recommended that Matthew consults university or other institutional staff attorneys to help develop arguments for MSCC’s position.
The Project Team agreed that, while frustrating, issues with Section 108 access would not affect MSCS libraries resolve to become HathiTrust members.
Clem wondered whether the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty on copyright exceptions for the blind and visually impaired would make a difference to HathiTrust’s policy on access to information resources.
Shibboleth/InCommon installation updates
Currently, Colby & Bates are still the only MSCS partners to install Shibboleth. And Bates is yet to install InCommon because they are discussing with their insurance company what the liability coverage would be for doing so. Gene is working on this, but did not give Matthew a time frame.
Bowdoin’s IT department had agreed to have Shibboleth and In Common fully implemented by mid-August. However, Judy had reported to Matthew that there may be some potential delays.
James reported that based on John Grover’s (Chief Information officer, University of Maine) timeline the University of Maine and University of Southern Maine should be ready to go live with Shibboleth any time now. Good news is that they are setting it up specifically with HathiTrust in mind as the first use case, so James feels good about the ability to get it connected to HathiTrust quickly once it’s available.
James reported that based on conversations with Jeremy York and having reviewed HathiTrust checklist documents he understands what his role as technical contact will require. He does not believe the role as go between will be very demanding as all HathiTrust requires is IP addresses and Authentication ID.
d. Budget
i. Update on partner contributions towards SCS costs
All MSCS partners who wanted to be billed for their contribution to contracting with SCS in the previous fiscal year have now submitted their payment. Matthew reported that he had sent out invoices to Bates & Colby for their contributions and hopes to have their payments soon.
e. MSCC Sustainability
i. MOU – update on submission of signed copies
Matthew has received signed copies of the MOU from UMaine, USM, and Bates. The State Library’s copy has been mailed to Matthew. Matthew reported that had been in contact with directors at the remaining partner libraries about the MOU and he hopes to have them all back in early September.
ii. Bob Kieft’s suggestions – Teaching document for shared print, agenda for future activity & national invitation event
Unfortunately, due to time constraints this item was not discussed.
iii. Future staffing of MSCC
Joyce Rumery, Dean of Libraries at University of Maine, has asked the Project Team to think about what staffing would be needed for MSCC once the grant period ends and what type of work would be involved for example, what work Sara would still be needed for, hours needed, whether the work could be performed by professional or classified staff members. Generally, what will be required post-grant from the University of Maine?
The Project Team agreed that in this last year of the grant they needed to plan for the sustainability of MSCC beyond the grant period.
iv. Federal requirement for open access to project documentation – website hosting, WordPress & content beyond MSCS
Joyce (after hearing a presentation at ALA about the White House directive on access to federally funded research) wanted the Project Team to be aware that MSCS outputs could be included. Matthew reported that although IMLS are included as part of the directive there is not much information on their website regarding what this mean for grantees.
MSCS should make sure final output plans include any required public access to data files, articles are open access and contributed to UMaine’s Digital Commons, etc. The MSCS website would probably be a central pointer to various sites including Slideshare where MSCS data resides.
Matthew commented that the Project Team needs to think about happens to the MSCS website once the project ends. It’s important as a record of the project and also because the 583 currently links to the website.
Matthew asked the Project Team to think about whether the website will be left as a record of the project? Will the retention link still go there? Will there be a new MSCC website? Will Maine InfoNet still host it? Will RainStorm’s Services for Word Press updates still be required?
f. Marketing
i. UMaine promotion
Matthew has submitted to Gretchen Gfeller, who is responsible for the Fogler website and promotion, a non-library news release complete with links about MSCS for Margaret Nagle, the director of Public Relations for the University of Maine to learn more about MSCS and decide how best to promote the work of the grant.
ii. Publish through ALCTS
Clem, Matthew, and Sara who presented at the ALCTS Pre-Conference event received emails about publishing their presentations in the form of an article or monograph. Matthew commented that ALCTS have various publications, but the most likely one for MSCS to submit a paper for an article to is the publication Library Resources & Technical Services.
Clem, Matthew, and Sara agreed to discuss submitting the paper at a later date.
2. Conferences & Meetings
a. ALA sessions – feedback
i. ALCTS Shared Print Monograph Session
On June 27th Clem, Matthew and Sara presented at the ALCTS Shared Print Monograph Session held at the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, IL. Also, presenting at the event, organized by Rick Lugg, were representatives from SCS and the shared print projects Michigan Shared Print Initiative (MI-SPI), LA Basin project & Connect NY.
Clem commented that with three presenters from MSCS it was a good showcase for the project. MSCS presenters had received positive feedback from attendees.
ii. Print Archive Network
On June 28th Clem presented at the Print Archive Network meeting held during the ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, IL.
iii. Other sessions
While at ALA Matthew attended a meeting updating WEST libraries on the progress of the project. WEST are currently finishing Cycle 2 in Phase 1 which involves consolidating and validating higher risk titles (“Silver” and “Gold”): They have begun Cycle 3 which involves agreements to retain lower risk titles (“Bronze”) in place in campus libraries or other facilities without additional validation. The next steps for these titles are to disclose retention commitments in OCLC & CRL PAPR.
Interestingly WEST is also working on a Group Access Capability (GAC) which will allow the members when searching in First Search to prioritize holdings of other members of GAC and can define auto-lending restrictions and rules.
They have applied to Mellon to fund Phase 2 of the project, which will encompass two additional Archiving Cycles and strategic planning and assessment to review the collections model, business model, and possible new services.
b. Northeast Regional Library Print Management Planning Project meeting – feedback
On July 9th Matthew, Clem, and Deb attended the Northeast Regional Library Print Management Planning Project meeting in Amherst, MA.
Deb commented that if a central physical storage facilty were the outcome it might put off institutions like the University of Maine from joining because of the geographical constraints to resource sharing. Clem responded that he sees the project creating a federated model rather than having a centralized physical storage facility. Clem felt the value of membership would be around journals, and also the expanded resources sharing opportunities between partners, particularly if Harvard and Yale were to join.
c. Planned MSCS presentations & reports
i. IFLA Conference, Singapore, August 19, 2013
Matthew and Clem have produced draft presentation slides for their IFLA presentation. Matthew will produce and submit to Julia Gelfand (by mid-July) an e-handout for attendees.
d. Proposed MSCS papers
i. Charleston Conference – MSCS paper update
The deadline for submitting papers to the Charleston Conference has been extended. Deb intends on working on the MSCS paper next week and submitting it by July 19th.
3. Upcoming meetings
a. August 14, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library
b. August 19, IFLA Collaboration in Collections: Libraries, Users and Information Providers — Acquisition and Collection Development, Singapore
c. August 30, Directors Council Meeting, Miller Library