Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
February 9, 2000
University of Wisconsin-Baraboo
Present: Arne Arneson, Anita Evans, Lorie Docken, Pat Wilkinson (vice Berens), Tom Peischl, Paul Moriarty, Joe Jax (presiding), Ken Grant, Peter Watson-Boone, Hsi-ping Shao, Joyce Huang, Chris Baum, Faye Flesia, Ed Van Gemert, Jean Gilbertson, Ellen James, Gary Alexander, Bob Rose, Peter Gottlieb
Guests: Richard Reeb, Steve Elfstrand
- Introductions, Announcements, and Call To Order
- CUWL Task Force on Cataloging Full-Text Journals in Aggregator Databases
- CUWL Customized Database Task Force Report
- Book Bid Task Force Report
- CUWL Operating Procedures
- CDC Report
- Resource Sharing Policy Update
- Discarding Library Materials
- Future of the CDR
The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Elect Joe Jax at 1:26 p.m.
Joe Jax announced that Bob Carmack was unable to attend these CUWL meetings.
Tom Peischl asked that changes to the CUWL membership list be sent to him; e-mail address changes should be sent to Lorie Docken.
Joe Jax announced that the Circus World Library was open until 4 p.m. on weekdays for anyone interested in visiting that facility.
Those present introduced themselves.
Joe Jax thanked Ken Grant for hosting this CUWL meeting.
It was moved (Evans) and seconded (Peischl) to approve the minutes of the CUWL meetings of November 8 and 9, 1999. Motion carried.
Richard Reeb (UW-Madison) and Steve Elfstrand (UW-Eau Claire) reported for the task force.
Richard reported on the task force’s additional work since the Green Lake meeting and distributed copies of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging Standing Committee on Automation Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases Final Report and the CUWL Task Force Progress Report. Among the issues highlighted by Richard were the facts that OCLC is not including holdings information in the 856 field, subfield 3, and that OCLC was not sanctioning the Ebsco practice of presenting holdings information, illustrated on page 10 of the PCC report, because it was not in concert with CONSER. The PCC report recommends inputting manual records for aggregators of fewer than 200 titles. For aggregators with more than 200 titles, machine-generated records are recommended. The PCC recommends distribution of the entire record set for an aggregated database whenever the OPAC is updated.
Steve provided some illustrations of sample Ebsco records from the UWEC catalog and discussed the difficulties and advantages of having single or multiple records for journals in aggregated databases. Steve indicated that it was possible to do a bulk import of Ebsco records into the Voyager database; however, it is not possible to do bulk deletes (if for example, a subscription to an aggregated database was cancelled). The advantages of the Ebsco approach include the fact that we could get started right away. Disadvantages include the fact that each title would have a separate record from each vendor, and that holdings are in the 856 field rather than the MFHD. Steve offered to have Eau Claire load records from Ebsco in its catalog to test how the bulk importing and updates would work.
Questions asked concerned whether or not Ebsco would notify of title changes, etc. At this point, no vendor is automatically doing this. The question was also asked whether the same title would show up multiple times if it was in multiple databases from the same vendor. The answer to this question is not known, but the supposition is that it would not.
The Task Force recommended in its report that: UW libraries purchase record sets from vendors and utilities; catalog or buy WorldCat Collection Sets for JSTOR and Project Muse titles; negotiations for new aggregated databases should consider the issue of records availability for aggregated titles; that OCLC be lobbied to include holdings data in WorldCat Collection sets; that the UW libraries lobby aggregators to conform to the JSTOR practice of notifying customers of changes in holdings dates; and that UW libraries lobby Endeavor to provide bulk delete functionality in Release 2000.
Ed Van Gemert noted that it is too late to include bulk delete functionality for Release 2000, but perhaps not for 2001. Paul Moriarty indicated his belief that not having bulk delete functionality is a gamble. Joe Jax asked if all the records have to be loaded at individual sites? The answer was yes if those sites want the information to be reflected in local records.
Joe thanked the task force for its excellent report, noting that the report subscribed to the charge of the task force.
It was recommended that individual libraries would have to pay for records from the database vendors. To the issue of the libraries lobbying Endeavor, it was suggested that a letter be sent to Jane Burke from CUWL. Peter Watson-Boone suggested that it would perhaps be better to run such a letter through System administration, even if it’s not a contract issue, and to work cooperatively with the Keystone and Georgia libraries on this issue.
The task force in its report also recommended the next steps to be taken, including fully testing the loading and maintenance of one record set at UWEC using Voyager’s bulk import program. Pat Wilkinson suggested it would be better to do this test before recommending that libraries go and purchase record sets.
Action: Arne Arneson moved and Tom Peischl seconded acceptance of the task force report. Motion carried.
Bob Rose reported that there had been some delay in getting the task force appointed and that its first meeting was scheduled for the next day. He encouraged CUWL members to give their ideas to task force members concerning what shape such a customized database might take. Task force members include: Anita Evans, Bob Rose, Lorie Docken, Denise Babin, Ken Grant, Jerry Rodesch, Abbie Loomis, Terri Muraski, Joan Robb, and Sarah Neises.
Lorie Docken reported on the work of the Book Bid Task Force, which has developed a draft for a competitive procurement process for acquiring books. This will be a request for bid rather than a request for a proposal. This process will cover domestic books only and bidders will be asked to provide information on possible cataloging outsourcing in their requests for bid. Such services would be optional, and available at additional cost. This procurement process would cover multiple vendors and would be non-binding, i.e., campuses would not be "bound" to follow the contract although the hope would be that most campus needs would be met by the list of vendors selected.
Tom Peischl noted that service is a definite issue in the award of any such contracts. Lorie responded that service issues are covered in the request for bid and that a reporting mechanism is being built into the contract so the performance of vendors can be audited. Paul Moriarty asked if bib records received through such an outsourcing project would be loaded in both OCLC and local OPACs and if the document could be reviewed by CUWL members prior to its being sent out. The answer to the first part of the question was yes. Lorie indicated the document could be shared with CUWL once the second draft is completed and shared with the committee. She expects it could be sent to CUWL members by the end of March.
Peter Watson-Boone led the discussion on the revision of the CUWL Operating Procedures. He noted the committee will take care of editorial changes and focused the discussion on, among other things, the input the committee had received from CUWL members. There was general agreement that a statement concerning the role of CUWL in state-wide issues should be added. The phrase "and strategic directions" will be added to item four in the introduction. As regards the organization membership, there was a majority sentiment to clarify who on campus is responsible for the library and to have that person be the CUWL member representing that campus. It was agreed that this statement should be written generically rather than referring to people by possible titles. It was agreed that there should be one person representing both the State Historical Society Archives and SHS Library. Jean Gilbertson asked about the intent of 3 in the Membership section – whether that person would be selected by the Library Coordinating Council as now, and whether it was intended to follow the guideline of that person not being a part of the General Library System. There was discussion about a possible representative from UW Extension. Apparently they would like to have further discussion if it is proposed that a faculty member representing Extension be dropped from membership, even though Extension has not been represented in CUWL meetings. Ken Grant asked if it might not make more sense now to have a representative from Learning Innovations or Continuing Education rather than Extension. Peter W-B noted that the role of Extension is changing, but that their voice should be heard. Gary Alexander recommended that this issue be run past Kevin Reilly at Extension. Gary will also check on the issue of a Vice Chancellor serving (B4). The issue of an ITMC representative was also raised.
Peter Watson-Boone asked if we should codify practice by listing standing and ad hoc committees in the document. There are currently three standing committees – the LAMs, CDC, and UWSAC. Should the latter be codified as a standing committee? The idea of UWSAC being a committee was to report annually to CUWL. Peter Gottlieb asked if there would be other ramifications in having UWSAC be a committee. Chris Baum asked if Peter was a member of the group, why couldn’t he represent the group to CUWL? Peter Gottlieb noted that UWSAC does some things with no association to the State Historical Society and that currently it does not report to anyone. Bob Rose noted that the function of UWSAC seems to differ somewhat from the other two committees and wondered if logically it should report to CUWL. Anita Evans asked about the origin of UWSAC. Peter Gottlieb responded that originally there were two groups representing the Area Research Centers and the UW Archives. Those two groups merged because of their overlap.
From the feedback the committee received from CUWL members as regards COWL, there seems to be sentiment to have three current members of CUWL on COWL, serving for three year terms. This is a topic that will require additional discussion.
Peter Watson-Boone noted that he thought there should perhaps be different meetings for different purposes – that sometimes it would be appropriate and helpful to have just the library directors meet to discuss library director issues. Ken Grant noted the difficulty that faculty members have in scheduling CUWL meetings around their class schedules. Hsi-ping Shao suggested that CUWL agendas might be structured in such a way that faculty representatives wouldn’t have to be present for the entirety of a two-day meeting.
As regards the distribution of CUWL minutes, the question was raised as to whether CUWL minutes should be sent to the CIOs and other groups and if such distribution should be specified in the operating procedures. There was general agreement that it should be so specified. Tom Peischl suggested that minutes should be mounted on the OLIT page. Arne Arneson suggested that OLIT maintain a CUWL page. Lorie Docken will check into that possibility.
Joyce Huang reported that the CDC had not met since the Green Lake meeting so her report would be brief. All the titles approved at Green Lake have been implemented. The CDC will meet in April and have a more substantial report at the next CUWL meeting.
Kathy Schneider noted that CUWL had previously approved the assumptions and principles of the Resource Sharing Committee document. The Committee had met that morning and reviewed campus input received vis a vis the document; there will be another report at the spring CUWL meeting.
Kathy also distributed a report on the ILL Direct Project noting that the use of ILL Direct varies tremendously from campus to campus. Those campuses that have been using it the longest have the highest level of activity, which might mean that it simply takes awhile for the service to be promoted to and used by library users. She also noted that as of January 1 of this year, System is paying for returnables from Madison and Milwaukee. Kathy had previously distributed that information.
Although the issue of discarding library materials was deferred to the next meeting, Ed Van Gemert asked if the possibility of establishing a remote storage site might be considered as part of that discussion.
The discussion of the future of the CDR largely focused on issues that had been raised at the Green Lake meeting. The CUWL Executive Committee had not yet acted on the previous motion to make a recommendation for its continuance or discontinuance. There was some disagreement on whether or not in fact information from the CDRs is used at the System level. It was recommended that Frank Goldberg at UWSA be consulted about this.
Action: Tom Peischl moved and Arne Arneson seconded that this issue be referred back to the CUWL Executive Committee to examine the continued utility of the CDR and to bring back to CUWL a recommendation for its continuance or discontinuance. Motion carried.
After Ken Grant provided some housekeeping details, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:20 p.m.
Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries
February 10, 2000
University of Wisconsin-Baraboo
Present: Ellen James, Peter Watson-Boone, Peter Gottlieb, Kathy Schneider, Lorie Docken, Pat Wilkinson (vice Berens), Faye Flesia, Hsi-ping Shao, Joyce Huang, Arne Arneson, ken Grant, Chris Baum, Ed Van Gemert, Tom, Peischl, Joe Jax, Jean Gilbertson, Anita Evans, Bob Rose, Kathy Pletcher
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by CUWL Chair Elect Joe Jax at 8:34 a.m.
- Digital Library Task Force
- State Historical Society Report
- Revised Vision Statement
- Endeavor Implementation Report
- Next Meeting
Joe Jax provided some background information on this task force, which he will be chairing. He noted that DPI may have a committee working on a digital library task force and that the task force will need to be sensitive to that. He noted that Barb Baruth will be replacing Tom Peischl on the task force.
Lorie Docken reported on a meeting she attended concerning the DPI project and distributed a handout on the "BadgerLink Digital Information Project." DPI is preparing an Institute for Museum and Library Services grant proposal to, among other things, digitize state and local historical information on Great Lakes Maritime History. Lorie reported that persons attending the meeting wanted to share information about what other groups are doing concerning digital projects. DPI would like to see a more centralized approach; others are more concerned about communicating information about projects.
Peter Watson-Boone questioned the part of the task force charge concerning its doing a feasibility study. He asked if a committee can do a feasibility study or should it more properly design such a study? Jean Gilbertson asked if it would not make sense to include someone from Madison on the task force because of the digital library initiatives occurring on that campus. It was noted that Rick Pifer from the SHS is a member of the task force. Hsi-ping Shao, assuming that the task force will be considering issues of content, technology, and funding, suggested that the task force needed to consider seriously funding for a pilot project early in its deliberations. Arne Arneson noted that Stevens Point is looking at the Museum of Natural History in efforts to digitize collections dealing with Native Americans. Tom Peischl expressed a concern that there may not be time to do a pilot project given the task force’s timeline and that the project needs to move with dispatch. Ed Van Gemert noted that this is a perfect opportunity for collaboration with faculty and the curriculum. Pat Wilkinson indicated that UWSAC has been examining the possibility of tying its digital project to the undergraduate curriculum and to that end looking at possible grant sources that might support such a project. Peter Gottlieb said that they were looking at digitizing certain ARC collections that had already proved useful for classroom instruction. Tom Peischl suggested that instructional design and curricular redesign funds might be appropriate for this project. Ken Grant noted an instance where he had been able to use images from the State Historical Society in support of his teaching.
Peter Gottlieb indicated that he would be recommending that Rick Pifer be replaced on the task force by Michael Edmonds.
Joe Jax asked if this project could be aligned with the image server. Ed Van Gemert replied that this was a possibility and that the technical group should consider the advantages and disadvantages of this. He cautioned that the image server, if implemented, would be very expensive. He also explained that the Technical Group was formed at the LATF meeting, to look at technical issues surrounding a digital database. Ed will provide information on the group’s membership as it is filled out. Kathy Schneider suggested that the task force consider what projects have already been initiated as part of its work.
Peter Gottlieb provided a report on the State Historical Society. He noted that the SHS has announced its intention to merge administratively the archives and the libraries. This merger has to go all the way to the Governor’s office for approval. The libraries and archives have already been working much more closely together.
Peter reported that considerable progress is being made on the retrospective conversion project, with money raised privately and with assistance from the Madison GLS. Archives is completing a 5-year project on all its manuscripts holdings and has applied for a photograph cataloging project grant. Peter also noted that ArCat is now available on Voyager and that it is being used heavily.
Public services and archives services will be combined into one reading room, bringing togeher all print catalogs and finding aids in one place. This will enable the provision of much better service to on-site users.
Several digital projects are underway. With private funds, the library is digitizing a series of newspaper articles on local history. Archives is converting 1200 pages to SGML and is beginning to discuss with the GLS the technical infrastructure needed to support the project that will enable the conversion to HTML on-the-fly, using PerlScript developed at Michigan. This will have great user benefits, providing more detailed information and a very sophisticated search capability.
Peter noted that the library had developed a draft collecting policy, its first since 1954. The committee that developed the draft policy included UW Madison faculty and staff. The draft policy made explicit what has been happening in terms of collections as well as setting forth future directions. Basically, the library will be developing research level collections covering all American history levels and will be developing comprehensive collections in Wisconsin history and genealogy. Despite the fact the committee had two history faculty members, there has been some resistance from Madison history faculty and the draft policy will be revisited. Peter offered to send copies of either the summary or complete policy document to CUWL members. Tom Peischl asked that electronic versions be sent. Ed Van Gemert asked if there had been discussion of state documents and digitization. Peter replied that documents will be considered at a later date and that digitization had not been considered. Anita Evans asked how UW Madison’s history collecting interfaces with the SHS. Peter replied that there was concern about overlap. Peter Watson-Boone questioned the terminology of research level – is the collection designed for faculty research as well as graduate research? Peter G. replied that it was for research at the PhD level and as such he considered the two to be synonymous. Peter W-B mentioned briefly a collaborative project underway at UWM, creating an online database of defunct Wisconsin corporations. He also offered copies of the UWM collection development manual to anyone interested.
Peter Gottlieb brought to the group’s attention a nice article on archival interlending, written by Josh Ranger (UW-Oshkosh) and Timothy Ericson (UW-Milwaukee), that appeared in Archivaria. He will send the citation for the article to CUWL members.
Electronic Records Management
Peter Gottlieb reported briefly on proposed rules for electronic records management. He noted that DOA had been charged with developing this rule in the 96-97 biennium. The work on the draft was completed in July and the draft has been presented to various groups. These rules have been developed as policy guidelines and are not be interpreted as a policy manual. It is up to each authority to determine how the rules would be implemented. The task force that developed the rules believes that eventually it may be necessary to have an operational manual.
On March 15, there will be a public hearing on the draft rules at the DOA building. If anyone is interested in attending, speaking, or testifying, Peter can supply additional information.
To date, the most negative reaction has been from IT people, while there has been relative support from the CIOs and Vice Chancellors.
Peter emphasized that these rules apply only to records kept solely in electronic form or in systems with no paper back-up system; they do not apply to records that have print counterparts.
Joe Jax thanked Peter for his reports.
Joe Jax led a discussion of the revised vision statement, noting several changes that had been made to it, including the fact that its timeline had been extended to 2005.
Tom Peischl asked who was going to lead the way to develop collaborative staff development, suggesting the responsibility for such resides in OLIT. Ed Van Gemert noted that the Senior Library Consultant position contains some of these ideas. Tom further suggested the CUWL Executive Committee be responsible for moving things along. Joe indicated this would be placed on the Executive Committee agenda. Arne Arneson suggested this should be a digital document and appear on the OLIT Web page. Pat Wilkinson expressed his belief on the usefulness of the document, to share with staff. Peter Watson-Boone asked if language should be modified to reflect changing circumstances, or should items be crossed off as they are accomplished?
There was consensus to accept the document as written, to cover the 2000-2005 time period.
Ed Van Gemert reported on the state of Endeavor Implementation. He passed out handouts of information picked up at ALA, asking CUWL members to pass them along to their LAMs. Ed congratulated everyone on the successful implementation of Voyager. He noted that training continues for such items as Media Booking and Report Writing. He noted how rewarding it has been to work with the LAMs.
Ed Van Gemert, Kathy Pletcher, and Ed Meachen will be making a presentation about Endeavor at the Board of Regents meeting taking place the next day. Kathy will talk about the vision behind Endeavor and provide an overview of the process. She will talk about universal borrowing and thank the state for the funding to make Endeavor a reality. Ed Van Gemert will do a brief PowerPoint demonstration illustrating some Voyager capabilities and there will be an "electronic ribbon-cutting" ceremony.
Ed Van Gemert has been working with Ellen James and Lori Voss on the Endeavor contract review. On balance, he is "not displeased" with Endeavor’s response though Endeavor has not addressed several issues. He noted that Jane Burke is extending credit to Madison for some of the problems they experienced with the system. He indicated that it would be possible for four UW libraries to participate in the Universal Borrowing beta test. Ed suggested that it might be useful to create some cross-system functional groups to work together to relay requests and problems to Endeavor, rather than each campus going to Endeavor directly. It might be better to e-mail functional groups to share information and possible solutions to problems. Ed believes that payments can now be resumed to Endeavor. Among other things, however, he wants to see a specific date set for the availability of a bindery module.
Joe Jax noted a particular problem with the Voyager acquisitions module. Ed indicated that the acquisitions module was scheduled for a significant upgrade with Release 2000.
Anita Evans asked about the four campuses that might participate in the beta test for universal borrowing. Ed responded that the beta test would start in September and that the four participating campuses will be selected, with input, by the Universal Borrowing Task Force. Any beta site will have to upgrade to Release 2000 prior to the beta test.
Ed also distributed a copy of the position announcement for the Senior Library Consultant. He noted the intent to have this position more involved with CUWL and project planning and also more involved in other IT projects within OLIT. He noted that this is Anne Iwata’s old position, though the responsibilities have been revised substantially. He also noted that there is CUWL representation on the Search and Screen Committee, including Arne Arneson, Paul Moriarty, Barb Baruth, and Ed Van Gemert.
Ed noted that there is still work on-going to improve Voyager, including upgrades to searching. Nancy McClements at UW Madison is heading up the effort there to develop searching upgrade suggestions and Ed suggested that campuses might provide input to her as part of this process.
Peter Watson-Boone suggested that there should be a coordinated plan for Release 2000 and that the Senior Library Consultant position would be important in this effort.
Ed encouraged attendance at VUGM from the various campus libraries. The question of whether there might be some system funding to assist in this was asked.
On July 1, Ed will return to his old position. CUWL members gave him a round of applause for his outstanding work in the Endeavor implementation effort.
Lorie Docken reported on a number of issues and accompanied her report with a detailed handout. The SCLS delivery contract was signed on December 10 and there will be a celebration of the enlarged service network at SCLS headquarters on February 18.
She also reported on the Library Automation Task Force meeting. The LATF is recommending that the UW libraries NOT go with the universal catalog approach but rather to go with simultaneous searching, which is critical to universal borrowing. The LATF also agreed that the image server is probably not an appropriate tool for a UW digital library initiative. With universal borrowing and simultaneous searching, there will need to be consistent search results and satisfactory network performance.
The task force has consulted with the Keystone libraries, and that group of libraries has developed a common web interface to convey a consortial notion to system users. Lorie and Ed distributed a handout illustrating the Keystone approach as well as some approaches taken by UW libraries. They suggested there were three approaches the UW libraries could take in regards to the Voyager interface: maintain the status quo, develop a unique web front-end for simultaneous searching, or develop a common web interface, a la the Keystone libraries. They recommended this issue go to the LATF for its recommendation.
Tom Peischl asked why this issue should go to the LATF, rather than to the LAMs. Lorie suggested it was a more philosophical issue, possibly more appropriately discussed by the LATF. Pat Wilkinson suggested there were actually two separate issues to address – one was the issue of simultaneous searching and how to accomplish that effectively, the other was the look and feel of the catalog at different campuses. Bob Rose noted this was a very important issue but also noted that the approaches taken by the different campuses reflected what was perceived as local needs and that that would have to be taken into account in the discussions. Anita Evans suggested this issue needed to be addressed by public service librarians who deal with library users on a daily basis. It was suggested that the OPAC Working Group might be the appropriate group to discuss this issue. Anita indicated she saw two possible scenarios – having each director go back to her or his campus for input and bring it back to CUWL for a conclusive decision, or have input sent to the OPAC Working Group.
Action: Bob Rose moved and Kathy Pletcher seconded that the issue of the Voyager interface be referred to the OPAC Working Group, for that group to look at the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches, and to report back to CUWL with its recommendations at the CUWL spring meeting. Motion carried, after discussion.
In further discussion, Jean Gilbertson asked if there could be a resource person with whom the group can work during its deliberations. Ed Van Gemert and Lorie Docken will serve as resource persons.
Lorie also reported on the DPI Library Issues Discussion Group meeting she attending, noted that the Linked Systems project has been delayed. She also attended the WLA Legislative Day and noted that UW library representation was scant.
Kathy Pletcher noted she was very disappointed in the turnout and thought it gave the other libraries in the state the perception that the UW libraries didn’t care about what happened to their funding, once the UW libraries got their requested support last year.
Action: Kathy Pletcher moved and Peter Watson-Boone seconded that next year CUWL meet in Madison the day before Legislative Day. Motion carried, after discussion.
In further discussion, Kathy Schneider suggested that CUWL send a letter to WLA apologizing for the lack of attendance at Legislative Day. She also reminded everyone that it didn’t need to be the director who attended. Peter Watson-Boone asked about attendance at last year’s event; about 20 librarians attended then. He also suggested that the CUWL Executive Committee contact WLA about working together and indicated that there probably needs to be more coordination between the WLA Board and CUWL. Anita Evans and Kathy Pletcher are on the WLA Board and will work towards that end. Lorie Docken noted that next year’s legislative day is not yet scheduled and will not be until the legislative calendar is completed. Normally, legislative day is scheduled on a floor session day.
6. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA)
Peter Watson-Boone introduced the topic of the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, noting that it is extremely restrictive and places many rights in the hands of vendors. This is legislation that is going before a number of state legislatures. Among other things, it would give vendors the right to cut off access simply by providing such cancellation of service notification via e-mail and would also give them the right to shut off service in internal systems from external locations. The UCITA is something about which we should be aware and fight to prevent from becoming law.
It was agreed that, if possible, the next meeting would be May 4 and 5 in La Crosse. If that is not possible, a secondary date of May 12 (only) was established to meet in Madison.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30.