Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries

CUWL meeting

 

Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries (CUWL)

Pyle Center, Madison, WI

August 31, 2005

Meeting Minutes

 

Present:  Pat Wilkinson (Chair), Ewa Barczyk, Barb Baruth, Marc Boucher, Kathy Davis, Lorie Docken, Anita Evans, Ken Frazier, Jean Gilbertson, Chris Goss, Peter Gottlieb, Tony Gulig, Leanne Hansen, Joyce Huang, John Krogman, Mordecai Lee, Valerie Malzacher, Ed Meachen, Paul Moriarty, Mary Rieder, Bob Rose, Kathy Schneider, Philip Schwarz, Brenda Swannack, Felix Unaeze, Ed VanGemert.

 

Guests:  Linda Voyles, Don Muccino, Roger Bottom, Mike Reeb (all from Endeavor), Nolan Pope, Richard Reeb

 

1.  Wilkinson called the meeting to order at .    All attendees introduced themselves, including two new CUWL members, Kathy Davis, new director at Stevens Point and Brenda Swannack, new interim director at Stout.  The consent agenda was adopted, including approval of the minutes from the CUWL May 5-6, 2005 meeting, review of the Executive Committee meetings minutes of June 15, 2005 and August 11, 2005, and approval of the agenda for this meeting.

 

2.  Strategic update from Endeavor (Muccino, Bottoms, and M. Reeb)

 

Muccino did a presentation on Endeavor’s current organizational structure to clarify who is accountable within the organization for specific services and products.  He said that Endeavor wants to improve communication with its customers.  He gave an overview of Endeavor products and the current customer base for the various product lines.  Muccino said that Endeavor wants to support the library mission in three areas: education, research, and preservation.  The company is especially interested in how Institutional Repositories will evolve.  Endeavor’s objectives to achieve its mission include: emphasis on interoperability, innovation, customer service and customer-driven development, and internationalization.  Specific initiatives include:  installation of worldwide advisory boards and introduction of evidence-based development methodology.  Endeavor recognizes the need to release new products that have fewer bugs.  Endeavor is developing “synergies” with its parent company Elsevier in certain areas of development. Customers like the WebSupport site and that’s been targeted for further improvement.  Meridian is Endeavor’s new Electronic Resource Management (ERM) tool.  Endeavor needs to think about the future of Voyager beyond just improving the functionality of the individual pieces (acquisitions, etc.). 

 

Q&A - Frazier asked about problems with Unicode rollout and is it being widely implemented?  Muccino said it’s being implemented by institutions of all sizes and various consortia.  Feedback is positive thus far.  The biggest problem is the down time required to implement it locally.   Some users skip Unicode and go directly to version 5.  Pope said that, because UW has system-wide UB, all campuses had to go to Unicode at the same time.  Moriarty asked if new customers are especially interested in UB.  Muccino said that UB is primarily being used by consortia that are growing and bringing in more members.  Frazier asked about overall growth in the business. Muccino said most growth is on the digital product side but the Voyager customer base continues to grow also.  Bottom said that Endeavor is trying to figure out where libraries are going in the future and would like to work with some current customers that are thinking through the repository issues.  Planned areas of improvement at Endeavor include: make reporting easier for Voyager customers, allow interoperability between Endeavor products and the other systems libraries are using, and provide the best possible user interface out of the box while allowing local customization to be easier.  Endeavor is interested in the customer/user demand for single search box (like Google). Wilkinson asked who they survey to get user feedback on interfaces.  Bottom said Endeavor works with the Elsevier user-centered design group.  The process involves identifying various persona (typical types of users) that represent both casual and expert users and working directly with them on interface development.  Endeavor thinks that a new Voyager interface will come in phases.  Some changes can be done easily, while others require changes in underlying code.  Endeavor used the persona-based process on the initial interface development for the Meridian and ENCompass Journals products. 

 

3.  Demo of OCLC’s Group Catalog and discussion on Group Services (Wilkinson, Malzacher and Schneider)

 

Wilkinson reviewed the major features of the group catalog.  This is a strategic opportunity to create a catalog that is part of a wider world of resources.  The catalog would be up-to-date in terms of including all of the OCLC records for the participating organizations and would provide a platform for resource sharing.

 

Wilkinson stressed that, when looking at demos, keep in mind that we do not need to set ours up in the same way.  Basically, the user is searching WorldCat using the First Search interface.  If an item is not in WorldCat, it will not be searchable.  Features of the Group Catalog include additional information about the item, cover art, format searching and format identification for items, local branding, scopes and super scopes, promotion of local items, deep linking into local catalog for shelf status, and links for resource sharing

 

Wilkinson did a demo of Montana Group Catalog.  He accessed the catalog using an authorization and password, but said that there are various ways to authenticate.  When logged on, he was identified as a patron of the Montana State Library.  He pointed out the various FirstSearch search capabilities, including basic, advanced, and expert.  He showed a search of all Montana libraries and the scope options for types of libraries, regions of state, and expanding a search to include “neighbors.”   The user can go narrower or broader than the state level.  An author search showed results and format options.  Results screen tells user that a specific title is available in his/her library.   Boucher commented that this is the same as WorldCat searching.  Lee asked what’s been gained for the user in the new product.  Wilkinson said that, similar to the Endeavor simultaneous search, the user can easily identify where the item is available and request it.  Huang pointed out that scoping for UW libraries would be the main advantage over plain WorldCat.  Wilkinson showed the scoping feature of the Montana catalog and pointed out that Montana has two options for requesting an item - a state-wide ILL request or an ILLiad request. He also showed a deep link into a local catalog. 

 

VanGemert commented that using the Voyager simultaneous search for the “discovery” of items available at other UW campuses is clunky, but that requesting an item using UB and its circulation functionality is acceptable.  The discovery feature of an OCLC Group Catalog is likely to be better than with the Voyager simultaneous searching.  VanGemert said that we cannot go back to an ILL model for all of our resource sharing.  Boucher said some features of simultaneous searching don’t work great, but shouldn’t we be working with Endeavor to improve that instead of taking the Group Catalog approach?  Each campus can decide whether to use the OCLC Group Catalog as its public catalog or to stay with its Voyager catalog.  Rose expressed concern that the Group Catalog would not discover materials not in OCLC, including documents and items still needing retrospective conversion. Frazier said that resource sharing with Minnesota or the CIC could be enhanced by setting up super scopes in the OCLC Group Catalog.  Wilkinson said this would also apply to the multi-type resource sharing efforts in northeastern Wisconsin.  Docken does not see the OCLC Group Catalog as a replacement for UB.  It does provide a good alternative to a union catalog, considering that we chose not to develop a union catalog when Voyager was implemented.  A question from Unaeze about costs was deferred to Schneider’s presentation and a question from Davis about MetaLib and SFX was deferred to Malzacher’s presentation. Baruth asked about items on order being picked up in the Group Catalog search and reminded the group that seeing what’s on order on other campuses is part of the CUWL strategic goal to do cooperative collection development.  There was clarification that, in order to deep link into the local catalog, the local record would have to have its holding symbol in OCLC.

 

Malzacher has been investigating the relationship between the Group Catalog and placing requests through Universal Borrowing.  After searching the Group Catalog, a user can link from a specific item to its record in a local Voyager catalog.  If the user has set the search scope for UW campuses, the results list may include more than one UW campus catalog.  Deep-linking into the local catalog is based on a guided search for the ISBN, ISSN or OCLC number present in the Group Catalog record.  This usually works, but once in a while the deep link results in a blank Voyager search screen, requiring the user to repeat the search in Voyager. 

 

Malzacher identified some questions and issues that need to be addressed.  If multiple UW libraries have an item, users may tend to self-select a library based on criteria such as location, size, familiarity, etc.  Will load leveling be an issue?  Will the user need to log in each time he/she navigates to a Voyager catalog to place a UB request for any item?  Will this process be intuitive?  Will users even think to navigate to the local UW catalog and remember that they can place a UB request?   What is the relationship between ILLiad and the Group Catalog?  Malzacher suggested asking OCLC if they can provide a link from the Group Catalog that includes a simultaneous search of our Voyager catalogs on the OCLC number for the item of interest.  Is this technically possible?  Would the user understand what’s happening? 

 

Malzacher did a demo in the ILLINET catalog which includes organizations with Voyager catalogs and a history of using UB for resource sharing.  She did not have to log on initially. She did a title search for a book, picked a record, and clicked on a library that owns the item.  The user typically has to pick a specific library.  She chose Roosevelt Library, a campus that uses Voyager, and the system did a guided search in the local catalog by OCLC number.  It took her to the Universal catalog in which Roosevelt is included.  When she hit Request, she was prompted for library borrower ID.  If this works for our UB environment, we may not need the ILLiad/borrowing option to show on the record in the Group Catalog.  Gilbertson asked if the Group Catalog would be used to place article requests.  Answer is no.  Gulig asked about a UW user connecting to a public library catalog.  It appears that the user needs to know that following a link to a UW catalog will present a UB link request option, but going to other catalogs may not.  Moriarty pointed out that all campuses agreed to consistency in the presentation of MetaLib and that we should be thinking the same way for the universal/group catalog.  Boucher suggested that we standardize what the request/borrowing button looks like on each campus’ catalog. VanGemert liked how the demo looked, but is concerned that we’re thinking like librarians.  We have no idea how users will approach this.  Right now there are too many options/decisions for users to make. 

 

Schneider initiated the discussion about the Group Catalog costs and timeline.  The only new functionality in the Group Catalog (over WorldCat) is the ability to scope searches and the only new costs are for that scoping.  The cost is between $32-34k a year.  For the first 18 months, this cost will be paid for by WILS.  After June 2008, the individual campuses would need to pick up the costs.  She distributed information on what those costs would be for each campus, assuming that all campuses would be on subscription access by then.  She used the approach of each campus paying its share of the cost ultimately – not centrally funded.  She has sent information to 67 libraries initially, inviting them to join.  Schneider and Wilkinson said that everyone participating in the Group Catalog will see the catalog scope, but others won’t.  Schneider expects this to initially be primarily an academic library group, with a few public libraries participating.  Presentations on the OCLC Group Catalog will be given at WLA and for the technical colleges this fall.  They need to know by October 1 who is going to participate in Phase 1.  Joiners in Phase 1 will be committed to pay their share of the Group Catalog in July 2007.  The initial participants will define the scopes and determine what the name will be.  Frazier expressed concern that UB transactions would be steered into ILL transactions.  Barczyk asked how feasible the Group Catalog is if many UW campuses opt out and suggested that it defeats the purpose of one system/one library.  VanGemert is disappointed in the low volume usage of UB at this point.  Do we expect that requests will increase with the Group Catalog?  It still won’t be as simple or intuitive for users as a catalog like a public library system catalog.  VanGemert wants to support anything that promotes increased usage of materials in the UW System.  Boucher asked that cost information be clarified, especially for the Colleges. 

 

Before voting on the Group Catalog proposal, Rose asked about who is actually voting – CUWL as a group or individual campuses.  We are voting as a group. Malzacher suggested that if we plan to ask OCLC to do some customization work to accommodate UB, we all need to be in this together.  Docken said it’s possible that UW System could fund the UW Group Catalog costs centrally, if cost is the main issue.  But what about the concerns about what’s not in the catalog?  Rose is concerned that users are being presented with more complexity.  It’s disappointing that MetaLib has not allowed us to simplify searching for users.  Wilkinson asked what the next step is.  Huang moved to accept the Group Catalog proposal with UW System library automation funds paying the $13k for the UW campuses’ costs for the last year of the project.  Unaeze seconded.  Wilkinson clarified that if the motion passes, all campuses would be included, but they do not all need to participate.   Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. 

 

4.  Strategic Directions for UW Digital Repository, Task Force Report (Pope)

 

Pope distributed copies of the report on Strategic Direction Recommendations for a UW Digital Repository from the CUWL Task Force assigned to this task.  The Task Force has identified the need for a higher level committee to look at the whole array of digital initiatives being implemented or discussed.   Task Force members are concerned about the level of overlapping interests.  Campuses are concerned about the need for ongoing funding for overlapping, but related, implementations.  Examples are MINDS@UW (currently using D-Space software) and Learn@UW (currently using D2L software).  .    Baruth asked how this relates to current CIO discussions about content management software.  Could CMS be another overlapping implementation?  UW-Milwaukee is the only campus currently looking at this seriously.  Docken confirmed that there has been no serious systemwide discussion about CMS.  Baruth hopes that CIOs all understand the future implications of CMS.  Barczyk said that UWM’s CIO is looking at content management for institutional records.  Gottlieb said he thinks an institutional repository is about managing the intellectual output of the university, not institutional records.  Frazier said that we need to understand that many stakeholders in archiving are not library-related, such as the archiving of course materials.  The most important thing is to identify how all these activities overlap. The conversation needs to include non-librarians.  Evans commented on the governance structure proposed for the steering committee proposed by the task force.  Is it necessary to have an archivist on the committee or a public services librarian?  Their inclusion is primarily related to the usability of the final product.  Pope said the thinking is that, for archives (faculty-generated materials), we currently have no mechanism for collecting and preserving born-digital materials, but we need to develop one.  One of Pope’s primary concerns is the ability to search across the various systems.  Barczyk moved to support the recommendation for a higher level steering committee.  Boucher seconded.  Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Frazier raised the questioned of how other campus libraries view their role in promoting and supporting the institutional repository.  Hansen has built it into liaison and outreach activities at Green Bay. Malzacher is billing the library as the organization leading this initiative at RiverFalls.  One role the library can play is overseeing construction of metadata.  She passed out copies of her library’s new brochure about MINDS@UW.  Evans said that there’s been discussion on the LaCrosse campus, but that collaborative workspace for faculty is a higher priority.  Barczyk said that Milwaukee is on the ground level, trying to bring staff up to speed on the repository, pulling together a group, and trying to get buy-in.  Huang has included a statement in the Whitewater library’s goals for 2005-2006 about starting to contact faculty about the repository.  Frazier says movement on the Madison campus is very slow.  Most faculty feel overstretched, so they’re not likely to want to put much personal time or energy into this.  We need to pay attention to national trends related to institutional repositories.  Docken said that UWSA has had some internal discussions about various projects/implementations.  People are starting to see the advantages of having a repository integrated into the course content management process.  Wilkinson said that it’s a challenge for a library to carve out enough time for one staff person to take the lead on this and see it as his or her top priority.  Wilkinson, who is a member of the task force, thinks the proposed steering committee needs to look seriously at whether D-Space is the right vendor to continue with in the future.

 

Prior to lunch, Wilkinson recognized Phil Schwarz’ long service as a UW library staff member, LAM, and, most recently, as interim director at Stout. 

 

5.  Approval of CUWL strategic directions document and review of budget recommendations (Huang and Docken)

 

Huang moved that CUWL accept the latest version of the CUWL Strategic Directions for 2005-2007 as an approved document.  Unaeze seconded her motion.  Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.   A brief version of the document will be done for public distribution. 

 

With the approval of the strategic directions, Docken passed out a budget memo, reviewed the status of the various budgets and presented the proposed budget recommendations for CUWL consideration.   There is a 10% reduction in the Library Automation budget for 2005/2006.  It is too soon to know whether some or all of this reduction will be restored for 2006/2007.  UWSA wanted to preserve the Shared Electronic Collection budget, but a 1.4% reduction was mandated for both years of the biennium. 

 

The following initiatives and allocations from the library automation budget were recommended: 

 

  • Voyager hardware replacement and hub expansion: $280,000 in 2005/2006

  • UW Digital Library Collection:  $200,000 in 2005/2006 and $250,000 in 2006/2007

  • Resource sharing Initiatives:  $150,000 in 2005/2006 and $175,000 in 2006/2007

  • Electronic Resource Management (ERM) software:  $200,000 (rough estimate) for 2006/2007

 

Voyager hardware replacement and hub expansion:  With aging hardware and growing maintenance costs, this is the time to expand the library hub model.  Moriarty has been encouraging campuses to participate in a hub in lieu of running and maintaining their own server hardware and doing their own software upgrades and patches.  There is a plan to expand the current hub at DoIT.  Docken recommends upgrading to the new hardware when upgrading to Voyager 5. 

 

UW Digital Library Collection:  Docken had spoken with Frazier and Pope earlier about the $50,000 reduction in the budget allocation.   They agree that the reduction is viewed as a temporary shift in order to provide a short-term funding increase for resource sharing. 

 

Resource sharing initiatives:  Two initiatives are starting up: expanded delivery of non-returnables across UW System using a new net lender compensation plan and expanded use of document suppliers for non-returnables.  Both have budgetary implications which will become clearer in the next few years.  The estimated costs for the new net lender compensation plan have been increased from $95,000 to $125,000.  The budget for British Library Document Supply has been decreased this year, but the overall funding for document suppliers will be increased back to $50,000 next year.  Rose asked about BLL expenditures for 2004-2005.  Schneider said just under $26,000.

 

Electronic Resource Management (ERM) software:  This needs to be investigated on a system-wide level.   No funding is allocated for this year, but $200,000 (a rough estimate) has been earmarked in the budget for 2006/2007, should we decide to proceed.  Later this year CUWL should put together a working group to “investigate features of an ERM system including license data, entitlements, and administration of electronic resources.” The initial goal is to understand what the need is for this product and what we would get out of it.   If a decision is made to proceed, we will need to consider and review products available in the marketplace.  Docken clarified that ERM software is very much tied into the MetaLib/SFX knowledgebase. 

 

There was general discussion about funding for libraries.  Frazier acknowledged that, even with UWSA’s extensive cuts, the library funds have been protected as much as possible. CUWL is very grateful for this.  Nevertheless, Frazier said that CUWL will need to reintroduce the problematic issues related to no increases to the acquisitions budgets for UW libraries.  That message needs to be delivered to the Board of Regents.  Wilkinson reminded the group that WLA had offered to help CUWL lobby for library funding at the UW System level last year, but the timing was not right.  Meachen reviewed how the UWSA budget evolves, starting in September of the year prior to the new biennium.  Docken said that libraries were on the Board of Regents budget request for the past couple years, but didn’t make it on to the governor.   Meachen said it makes sense to start the process sooner.  Hansen said that the WLA lobbyist thinks it’s best to focus on one main issue.  Last time it was funding for public library systems.  If WLA retains that approach, CUWL may want to propose that UW libraries be identified as the main issue for the next biennium.  Evans moved that the Docken memo and budget recommendations be approved by CUWL and forwarded to Cora Merritt and Ed Meachen.  Huang seconded.  Wilkinson called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously. 

 

6.  CDC Report (Richard Reeb)

 

The last CDC meeting was in Madison on August 9.  Our American Chemical Society rep Doug Storm attended.  The ACS archive is now $24,000 (leased price), but there is now a new option to purchase the archive.  Reeb said the one time price would be prohibitive and it’s unlikely that any campus other than Madison would even consider it.  For our current subscriptions to the Wed Editions journal collection, for 2006, invoices will be sent out directly to campuses.  UWSA will be sent an invoice for only its share of the total cost. 

 

A working group of CDC will closely review the massive amount of data compiled for the serial overlap study.   That group will make recommendations on how to approach the process of reducing the level of duplication.  Campuses need to review the lists and notify Docken of any errors or titles canceled recently. 

 

Reeb gave a brief update on the Yankee Book Peddler project and distributed a 2005 revision by CDC of the 1999 CDC Policy on Retention of Last Copy. 

 

Reeb said that a sizeable budget deficit is projected for 2006/2007, so CDC is reviewing three major products currently funded by UWSA funds - Web of Science ($223,000), Lexis/Nexis ($242,000), and ABI/Inform ($160,000) – for possible cancellation.  Thus far most discussion has focused on WOS.  He asked campuses interested in retaining access to WOS to request individual pricing from ISI.  We need to send ISI a clear message that the UWSA cancellation discussion is underway.  We also need to get individual pricing for Lexis/Nexis and for the premium version of Business Source Elite. UW-Madison plans to purchase the backfile of the Royal Society of Chemistry journals.  Access would be extended to all UW campuses for a one-time $2,000 fee, which UW-Milwaukee is willing to pay.  Evans asked if Web of Science can be broken out into humanities and social science pieces.  Docken will find out. 

 

Frazier moved and Boucher seconded approval of the revised CDC Policy on Retention of Last Copy. Frazier questioned how the revised policy will be “implemented” on each campus. Reeb is point person on Madison campus.  He acknowledged that it is very difficult to coordinate this across the entire UW System.  Frazier asked when this policy comes into practical effect.  Reeb said typically when a campus is weeding a collection and materials are offered to other campuses.  Reeb said that the revised policy still mentions retention of a print file for which licensed electronic access is available.  Wilkinson called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously.

 

7.  Collection Management Task Force Update (Barczyk)

 

Barczyk distributed an update report and reviewed the task force recommendations. There will be an evaluation of the Yankee project at the end of the six month pilot.  The Task Force has put together a survey that is going out to the campuses.  One benefit of the project has already been identified, that staff can now articulate questions about shared acquisitions activities that would have been difficult to identify without the trial.  The trial will also help with putting out an RFP for vendors at the end of the year.  Although the full survey results will not be available until later this year, Madison and Milwaukee have indicated that they’ve already made some decisions not to buy items already in the system. 

 

The biggest concern thus far about having a common vendor relates to discounts.  Some campuses currently have better discounts from other vendors.  This is an issue that needs to be addressed later as part of the RFP process. 

 

Barczyk said that the campuses are also starting to assess the duplication of serials across the system, focusing initially on serials with annual costs over $500.  The Task Force has thoroughly discussed and investigated the OCLC Collection Assessment Service.  At this time they are still recommending that CUWL defer buying this product because of cost and the related staffing costs for the assessment.  It may be reconsidered later on.  Even without the OCLC product, it would be helpful just to have a snapshot of duplicate book purchases for a recent sample year.  Huang asked about how inclusive the GOBI data is, in terms of years of inclusion.  Barczyk said that the purpose for using GOBI is for current publications.  It’s possible for libraries to use Simultaneous Search to check for duplicates if that workflow works for them. Baruth said, in addition to the discounts, the other main issue is workflow.  The goal should be to make this easy to do for each campus, regardless of their size.  Barczyk said that this project can help all the campuses assess and improve their workflow practices.  Boucher expressed interest in having links to book reviews for titles in the catalog. 

 

Libraries participating in this project should plan to share what they learned about workflow with all the UW campuses, not just with their colleagues that participated. 

 

8.  Review of UW Libraries Budget Reduction Template (Goss)

 

Goss distributed a sample template with EauClaire’s data.  He clarified that S&E data is not in the ALS, so he would need to collect that data from each campus.  He would also need to define what S&E includes.  Explanatory information that might be helpful could be included in the details.  Frazier said that UW-Madison libraries have not experienced significant cuts in recent years.  A budget reduction template of this sort will make Madison libraries look financially healthy, but Madison still has critical need for increased funding for collections.  The current plan is to have Goss put the data together and have CUWL review it in the fall and decide what to do, or not do, with it.   Rose thought that inclusion of stories or anecdotal stories about impact of reductions might be more persuasive than so much detailed data.  Data can be skewed by issues like reorganizations and staff vacancies.  Baruth asked how to achieve consistency between campuses.  Docken said that if we use numbers reported through ALS, they should be consistent.  Rose wondered if the data should focus on a specific area rather than just repeating ALS numbers.  Krogman asked what the purpose for collecting this data is.  If it’s for a DIN, the numbers need to be carefully compiled.  Rose suggested that budget figures are more accurate than expenditures.  But where is this data going?  Each library is responsible for communicating its budgetary problems to its campus.  Boucher assumed that the reason for the data collection was to help UWSA support libraries’ budgetary needs.  There was general agreement that that was the original intent.  Barczyk gave an example of her campus telling her that the library had to lose positions and her being able to say that that was a campus decision, not a mandate from UWSA.  In the end, the group decided to use total budget numbers for collections and total number of staff – broken down by librarians/professionals, classified, and students FTEs.  2001 data will be the base point.   CUWL will review the data collected and compiled by Goss at its fall meeting and decide what to do with it.

 

9.  Resource Sharing Committee (Schneider)

 

Docken had already covered the budget piece in her report.  Schneider clarified that for non-returnables there will be no fee charged by WILS for Madison fills or by UWM for Milwaukee fills.  Schneider said that the net lender compensation for each fill will be $6.75.  That is the net lender compensation fee for any campus. 

 

10.  MetaLib Implementation Review – Moriarty and Malzacher

 

A revised version of the spreadsheet showing each campus’ progress was passed out.    Moriarty commended Todd Digby, Sue Dentinger and Curran Riley for working with Lower to resolve problems.   He thanked campuses for working towards a certain level of consistency in their implementations of MetaLib.  Malzacher mentioned the successful Metalib meeting in Madison in July, with IT folks, public service librarians, and others attending.   The UW-Colleges brought MetaLib up first and was able to share early user responses at the meeting.  Breakout sessions about promoting and teaching MetaLib were especially helpful.  The group talked about the need for statistics and enhancements for the product.  We would like to continue the dialog about these products across the campuses.  Malzacher sees a level of philosophical differences between how the campuses are presenting it, such as QuickSearch vs. Advanced Search. We need to assess if students are really so different from one campus to another that we can’t agree on the presentation.  This is a good opportunity to learn about patron behavior, not just the librarians’ perspective.  Moriarty said that Maryland did a lot of work to get user feedback, resulting in a very stripped down model.  Hansen indicated that there are philosophical differences between staff on the same campus.   Library staff want what’s best for the user, but that plays out in very different ways.  Do we give them what they want (simple, good enough) vs. what they need (complex, thorough)?   Some staff view federated searching as un-teachable in basic instruction. Others view it as a teaching opportunity. 

 

11.  Other Business

.

Docken said the ITMC meeting date has been set, but it’s not a joint meeting.  ITMC would like a joint meeting with CUWL in the spring.   Wilkinson said we need to decide about a fall meeting and come up with some dates to give ITMC.   Do we want an early November CUWL meeting?  Frazier suggested yes, if we’re going to make progress on our strategic plan.  No objections.   Nov. 3-4 or 7-8 or 10-11 will be considered, with preference for Nov. 10-11, to provide more break from WLA conference.   RiverFalls has offered to host the November meeting.  Potential agenda items include:  Diversity Task Force report, Group Services update, LAMs update on hubs and Version 5 updates, documents librarian presentation, CUWL Group on SubGroups, review of budget template, clarification on what distance learning statistics will be collected and shared.  Wilkinson suggested a “crazy idea” session for someone who wants to present an idea – about 30 minutes total time, split between presentation and discussion.

 

Frazier said that Madison is working on a Scholarly Communications web page for communicating with faculty.  When it’s available, he’ll ask CUWL members for their feedback on it.  Madison will provide a library contact point/office for faculty with questions.  When working with faculty on repositories, library staff discovered that some people actually need a publishing venue for original content.  The UW-Madison libraries are starting up a digital press.

 

There was discussion about possible dates in April for the spring CUWL meeting.  Rose suggested not committing time for a joint meeting with ITMC in the spring.   Meachen expects a fair amount of IT news in the spring and suggested a brief combined general session.  Docken is initiating discussions about Learn@UW/D2L’s relationship to repositories and learning objects.  In April there should be an update for CUWL on the D2L/library services integration at Rochester Institute of Technology. 

 

Baruth moved to adjourn the meeting and Malzacher seconded.  Meeting was adjourned at .

 

Minutes submitted by Jean Gilbertson, CUWL Secretary