Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
\nNovember 13, 2012
\nFogler Library Conference Room
\n2:00 – 4:00 pm<\/p>\n
Attendees: Sara Amato (on phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Matthew Revitt, Deb Rollins<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Project Updates<\/strong><\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0583 testing<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Technical Services Committee Meeting<\/strong><\/p>\n The Technical Services Committee met October 23. Sara updated the Committee members on the progress of the project, in particular retention (583) & OCLC (shared print symbol) decisions. The Committee raised some interesting questions regarding the shared print symbols and workflow for adding the 583 field to records.<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Agreed on OCLC Shared Print symbol – WorldCat Resource Sharing $300\/yr<\/strong><\/p>\n Sara sent a request to OCLC to turn on the agreed OCLC Shared Print Symbol for the partner libraries. At this point OCLC requested a phone conference with Sara where she was informed that there is $300 per year cost for the Symbol to be used in WorldCat Resource Sharing at the time of Symbol creation. If we decided to move to ILLiad at a later date they would credit that charge to the ILLiad purchase.<\/p>\n The Project Team agreed with Sara\u2019s recommendation that we proceed with only two Shared Print Symbols at the moment for testing, until we are ready for retention decisions, and have the WorldCat Resource Sharing turned on, which would trigger the $300 charge per institution. This should be sufficient for testing, and when we are ready to start ‘production’ work, it only takes a couple of days to set up the rest of the Symbols. It was agreed by the Project Team that we have Symbols for Bowdoin and Bangor, as that would give us a private, public and URSUS institution. Barbara authorized Sara to proceed with purchasing the Symbol for Bangor. Sara is going to contact Judy Montgomery at Bowdoin to get her authorization. Sara was unsure whether the $300 charge would generate a new invoice, or simply be added to existing OCLC bills.<\/p>\n iii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0LHR OCLC Tool testing<\/strong><\/p>\n OCLC now has a program at the ‘proof of concept’ stage for batch creating Local Holdings Records through a web interface.\u00a0 They are going to let MSCS try it out.\u00a0 Sara hopes that it might make an easier process than purchasing the export tables from III (Innovative Interfaces, Inc.).\u00a0 While there is no per-record charge for Local Holdings Records, the setup of an ongoing batch project to load them for each school is an one-time $345 set-up fee.<\/p>\n iv.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0ILL Testing<\/strong><\/p>\n Guy Saldanha (Bowdoin College) has agreed to begin testing the Inter Library Loan (ILL) implications of MSCS including the new OCLC symbol. Guy is also advising other ILL staff in the project.<\/p>\n v.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Illiad satellite library fee<\/strong><\/p>\n Sara has still not been provided with a person to speak to at Atlas regarding the satellite library fee. Sara is going to continue chasing for a contact person, so Clem can discuss the fee directly with Atlas.<\/p>\n vi.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Communications with III<\/strong><\/p>\n Sara, James and Matthew had a phone conference with Tom Jacobson from III to discuss the cost of custom programming for transfer and display of 583 in Inn-reach, and creating OCLC export tables.<\/p>\n At this meeting, the use of the 856 field was discussed as an alternative field for publicly displaying the retention statement links. Sharon Fitzgerald (University of Maine) tested this and it worked. Using 856 could work as a work around to the inability to display a URL in a 583 |u as an active link. Matthew raised the point whether we want to do \u2018work arounds\u2019 when MSCS is supposed to be producing a business model for good practice in managing shared print collections. The Project Team decided although using 856 (for not its intended purpose) is far from ideal it could be a practical solution to the issues with the public display. This issue is not unique to MSCS; other shared print projects that use III are also going to experience the same issues, so it should be something III looks at finding a solution to. A discussion then ensued regarding whether it might be useful to approach III as a group with other shared print projects.<\/p>\n Tom provided the Project Team with a revised quote for MARC records output. This quote of $12,500 removed URSUS 2 which was mistakenly included in the first quote of $15,000. However, this work may not be necessary if we try a web based product as an alternative to the export tables. Clem asked Sara whether we could upload back into III. Sara reply was that it depends on how we start with the retention information.<\/p>\n vii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Use of 561<\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew had previously asked Sara what work had been done around using the MARC 561 field for recording original storage location. Sara contacted OCLC and they recommended using 561. Although the MSCS business model is most likely going to be shared print in place, the use of 561 could be used if materials are for example, sent to a last copy center. Sara confirmed that the 561 won’t appear by virtue of having the 583, but we can automate its creation.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Collections Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Sara work progress<\/strong><\/p>\n Sara provided Matthew with a link to a form over an SQL database with the OCLC\/Circ data in it. It gives back 5 sample records on screen, plus a tab delimited text file with the maximum number of records you selected in the form. Sara reported that she can easily change what is returned, and add more search fields if needed. Sara took what was outlined by Matthew as the “added” data in the sample spreadsheet sent. But she could also add to the form to let the user select which fields to return.<\/p>\n Whilst working on the form Sara has been \u2018normalizing\u2019 data as she noticed issues. For example, there were some odd checkout dates. The fact that the data was not 100% clean did not surprise the Project Team.<\/p>\n Matthew is going to look at the form in more detail. Sara is also going to send a link to the form to the rest of the Project Team. Once the Project Team has had a chance to review the form a decision can be made whether it is sufficient. Sara reported that we could try to take it to the next level, by purchasing an account with the Google Cloud SQL and building a nicer interface program over it.<\/p>\n Sara is still to tackle FRBR and mapping Dewey to OCLC for the public library records.<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Meeting with SCS at Charleston Conference & Proposal<\/strong><\/p>\n Whilst attending the Charleston Library Conference Clem, Deb and Matthew met with the Sustainable Collections Strategy (SCS) team to discuss the possibility of employing SCS to perform collections analysis. The discussions went well and SCS were able to provide Matthew with a proposal in time for the meeting, which he presented to the Project Team. The initial thoughts of the Project Team were that the pricing model appeared reasonable, but that more time was needed to review the proposal. An initial query was what URSUS data are included in the proposal.<\/p>\n The Project Team felt that the Sara\u2019s form (see above) would complement the work of SCS. We can use the manipulated data to ask very specific questions which we might not be able to go to SCS with. It is presumed that SCS would provide us with a data set not a searchable database like Sara\u2019s. James mentioned that it would be useful if SCS could provide list of identifiers which we could use in Sara\u2019s form.<\/p>\n James mentioned that it would be a useful comparison to compare what we could accomplish with Sara and SCS.<\/p>\n Matthew will send the Project Team a copy of the proposal and a deadline of Thanksgiving has been set for Matthew to receive comments\/issues by, at that time the Project Team will make a decision whether or not to use SCS. If we do use SCS it was recognized that there would be background and preparation work which Sara would need to assist us with. For example, we would probably need a separate pull of data to capture the additional data SCS requires.<\/p>\n The Project Team agreed not to renew OCLC WorldCat Collection Analysis for the MSCS partner libraries.<\/p>\n Clem discussed how important it is that we have retention commitments and that the delay in getting those commitments is worrying. A deadline of February 2013 has been self-imposed on the Project Team to complete collections data analysis which SCS have been made aware of.<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0HathiTrust<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Judy Montgomery discussions regarding consortial membership<\/strong><\/p>\n Judy Montgomery (Bowdoin) contacted Deb regarding discussions she had with Paul Courant, University Librarian at University of Michigan and also a member of the HathiTrust Board of Governors and their Executive Committee. Paul mentioned the possibility of consortial HathiTrust membership which other groups (for example, OhioLink and the California Digital Library) have used. Judy wanted to check with the Project Team whether this consortial membership is something we wish to pursue using Paul as a contact.<\/p>\n Although consortial membership had been discussed previously with the HathiTrust (without agreement), it was agreed that Judy should try again. Matthew will contact Judy to request that she pursues this with Paul.<\/p>\n Clem felt that the business model of HathiTrust means that it is going to have to look at consortial membership. A discussion of the HathiTrust pricing model ensued.<\/p>\n Before partner libraries become members there is still the issue of Shibboleth, which has not been implemented. This is going to be a significant issue, particularly for public libraries whose patrons have multiple \u2018identities\u2019.<\/p>\n d.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Budget<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Meeting with Andrew Ines<\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew met with Andrew Ines, Grant & Contract Administrator for UMaine. Andrew identified the requirement for commitment letters (see below) and need to fill in the University of Maine ORSP budget document (see below). Matthew sent Andrew a copy of revised budget and he is going to get back to him with any comments\/issues by the end of the week.<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Partner libraries commitment letters<\/strong><\/p>\n At Andrew Ines\u2019 request commitment letters were sent by Matthew to MSCS partner libraries. The letters are a commitment to cost sharing funds. The letter need to be signed by someone at a higher level than the director, so depending on the hierarchy of the library this could be a Provost at an academic library or President of the Board of Trustees at a public.<\/p>\n A deadline has been set for the letters to be returned to Matthew by November 26th, 2012.<\/p>\n iii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0ORPS vs. IMLS budgets<\/strong><\/p>\n In addition to completing the IMLS budget documents Matthew has also produced a University of Maine ORSP budget spreadsheet. After initially attempting to start the Year 2 budget from the date of his meeting with Andrew Ines, Matthew decided to revert to the IMLS budget years which made completing the form a lot simpler.<\/p>\n iv.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u2018Cum Various\u2019 charges<\/strong><\/p>\n Whilst reviewing MSCS General Ledger accounts Matthew noticed some spending which he had not accounted for in actual spending in the Year 1 budget. This meant revising the Year 1 budget and accounting for similar spending in Years 2 and 3.<\/p>\n v.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Agree final draft of budget<\/strong><\/p>\n The Project Team approved what Matthew hopes is the final draft of the budget. It was recommended that Matthew contact Andrew Ines to identify the process for submitting the budget to IMLS.<\/p>\n e.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0IMLS Interim Performance Report<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Matthew working on draft<\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew provided the Project Team with a draft copy of the IMLS Interim Performance Report to review. Matthew requested that any suggested changes be sent to him in time for a final draft of the report to be presented at the December 7th Directors Council Meeting.<\/p>\n f.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0MOU<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Present final draft at December Directors Meeting<\/strong><\/p>\n Barbara presented a copy of the MOU to her Board of Trustees who expressed fears about what happens when the Executive Committee is opened up to the rest of the State, including smaller libraries who could make decisions regarding pricing. The Board wants us to look carefully at the criteria for selecting individuals to sit on the Executive Committee.<\/p>\n Matthew will send the latest version of the MOU to the Project Team, so the language regarding the Executive Committee can be carefully reviewed. This review will be completed in time for the final draft of the MOU to be presented at the December 7th Directors Council Meeting.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Conferences & Meetings<\/strong><\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Charleston Annual Conference feedback<\/strong><\/p>\n Clem, Deb and Matthew attended a pre-conference session on shared print collections at the Charleston Conference. Both Clem and Deb also presented at the pre-conference. Matthew will add their presentation slides to Slideshare and the MSCS website.<\/p>\n All MSCS attendees agreed that the session went well and that it was interesting to hear other projects dealing with similar issues to MSCS. There was a good mixture of attendees, not all of whom were currently involved in shared print projects. Matthew reported that it was interesting how many of the projects were using the services of SCS.<\/p>\n Matthew mentioned attending an interesting Charleston session on the Digital Public Library (DPL) and asked the Project Team their opinion on the potential relevance to MSCS. Clem\u2019s response was that although we don\u2019t need to mention DPL for MSCS, there does need to be work regarding the lack of central digital infrastructure in Maine.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Clem meeting with Michael Emly (University of Leeds), re: COPAC Collection Management Tools Project, Leeds, UK feedback<\/strong><\/p>\n Clem reported that he had a very interesting time visiting Michael Emly. Their project is facing a lot of similar issues to MSCS, even if it is in a different environment. In the UK there is more of a tradition of nation-wide collaboration through organizations like JISC. They use the COPAC system which unlike Inn-Reach allows them to add a publicly viewable 583.<\/p>\n Clem mentioned that of particular interest to MSCS is the Leeds University \u2018Criteria for deciding the category of a particular collection\u2019 which has 4 categories: Heritage, Legacy, Self-renewing and Finite. MSCS could potentially use these categories when we make retention decisions. They are also looking at brittle paper issues and other collections at risk and whether collections at risk are a different category, which need more copies and\/or digital copies.<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Potential Speaking Opportunities<\/strong><\/p>\n i.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a02013 Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, June 27- July 2, 2013 \u2013 SCS Session<\/strong><\/p>\n SCS mentioned that they have a potential session on shared print which we could be a part of. Clem mentioned that a possible unique topic for MSCS is our use of HathiTrust data in the retention decision-making process.<\/p>\n Matthew contacted Cory Tucker who is head of the Collection Management Section (CMS) of the Association of Library Collections and Technical Services regarding potential speaking opportunities. At Cory\u2019s (and Clem\u2019s) recommendation Matthew contacted Andrea Wirth who is on the CMS Executive Committee, but has yet to hear anything back from her.<\/p>\n ii.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a02013 IFLA Conference, Singapore, 17-23 August 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew is continuing to monitor the IFLA website for request for papers announcement.<\/p>\n d.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Sara ALA Midwinter Meeting Registration Costs<\/strong><\/p>\n The Project Team agreed to cover the costs for Sara Amato\u2019s registration for the ALA Midwinter Conference in Seattle.<\/p>\n e.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Advisory Board Visit Spring 2013<\/strong><\/p>\n Matthew has spoken to Constance, Lizanne and Bob regarding changing the Advisory Board visit to Year 2 instead of as originally intended in Year 3. They agreed that Year 2 made more sense and they are available to visit in May 2013.<\/p>\n Matthew asked what sort of sessions we want the Board to attend. For example, project meetings and possibly \u2018Larger Libraries\u2019. Matthew spoke to Karen Stewart and although there is no \u2018Larger Libraries\u2019 meeting scheduled, we could schedule one. There is a not a Maine Library Association meeting scheduled unlike when they came last year. Clem suggested we look at them attending the May 24 Maine InfoNet Collections Summit which is an all-day event. They could come the day before and attend other TBC sessions. Matthew will check with the Board whether they are available on those dates.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Upcoming meetings<\/strong><\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Dec. 7, Friday, 1-3pm, Directors Council Meeting, Miller Library \u2013 Agenda items<\/strong><\/p>\n The Project Team made suggestions for what items should be on the agenda for the Directors Council Meeting.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Deb. 12, Wednesday, 2-4pm, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library<\/strong> Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team November 13, 2012 Fogler Library Conference Room 2:00 – 4:00 pm Attendees: Sara Amato (on phone), Clem Guthro, James Jackson…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-745","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=745"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/745\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1046,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/745\/revisions\/1046"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n c.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Jan. 9, Wednesday, 2-4pm, Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library<\/strong>
\n d.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Jan 25-29, ALA 2013 Midwinter Meeting, Seattle, WA<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"