Collection Council Meeting, May 4, 2004
Attended by: Phyllis Bischof, Gail Ford (recorder), Jim Gordon, Rebecca
Green, Patricia Iannuzzi (chair), Phoebe Janes, Allan Urbanic for Shayee
Khanaka, Norma Kobzina, Jean McKenzie, Linda McLane, Barclay Ogden,
Margaret Phillips, Camille Wanat. Absent: John Roberts.
Action items:
* Camille will send Patty an email re:cataloging and making visible online
UC dissertations.
* Margaret will draft an email asking UCB library staff for feedback on the
list of titles under consideration by CDL for purchase with year-end funds.
* Margaret will organize a process in which UCB reference staff and library
instructors can comment on the proposal to replace ABI Inform with Business
Premiere. One element will be to publish Milt Ternberg's very good analysis
on this proposal proposal alongside the analysis done by the UC Business
Librarians; a second element will be to arrange a local trial of Business
Premiere.
* CC members will conduct discussions in the subject councils about the
"Building Shared Collections" document (previously distributed), using the
recent "Draft Behaviors of JSTOR dim archive" as a case study.
Members will report back the results of these discussions to Patty via
email. (Under what conditions would you put an item into a shared print
archive? When is access to the archival print copy absolutely required?
What kind of behaviors would you want to see in any agreement?)
* Patty will ask Isabel Stirling if she would add "online reference
resources" to the agenda for her Reference Services group. Discussions
might include "When is it worthwhile to pay annually for digital reference
resource? How do we work with digital reference tools? How do we let
patrons know about online reference resources? How are digital reference
tools cataloged now, and how does this meet our minimum needs for subject
access, etc.? How do we want to evaluate digital reference tools?"
* Patty will draft an email to selectors asking them to name any digital
resources that they currently pay for from their individual fund that
comply with DiLib guidelines for funding. CC would like to consider whether
some long-standing digital resources should be shifted to DiLib funding,
but needs to know first the number and costs of these titles.
Agenda:
1. Announcements
2. Building Shared Collections
3. DiLib
Meeting Content:
1. Announcements
* Camille raised a concern that UC's online dissertations are very
difficult for users to find in the new MELVYL environment. Patty suggested
that Camille summarize the issues in an email to Patty, who will then
discuss this with Admin.
* Norma asked about UC Press books and our duplication policies. Patty
mentioned that UC Press and the issue of duplication is an issue between
Doe and Moffitt, as it is between subject specialty libraries and Moffitt.
The Doe-Moffitt overlap and strategy will be discussed at an upcoming
Doe/Moffitt USA/Comm retreat. Once this discussion has taken place, Patty
will extend the conversation to consider affects and practices with the
subject specialty libraries. Patty reminded selectors that UC Press titles
are available online. Camille mentioned that Moffitt's weeding policy (in
cases of "last copy at UCB") is germane to any discussion of duplication
library-wide
* Gail announced that selectors need to send any changes to their
"proposed" cancellation lists to her no later than June 1. She sent out an
email to all selectors today giving specific instructions.
*CRL Board meeting.
Patty reported that the main topic at this meeting was the development of
dim archives, dark archives, and institutional repositories. JSTOR is in
process of negotiating dim archives with a number of institutions in the
U.S. and is still seeking partners for dark archives. Judy Russell of the
Government Printing Office described the proposal to retrospectively
digitize all government documents (60 million pages over 20 years at a cost
of $12 million.) Nancy Davenport from the Library of Congress spoke to the
national need for creating a dark archive for monographs, and also
described how this would be a new interpretation of the mission they
typically have used with Congress.
Patty heard at this meeting about CRL's annual effort to coordinate large
microform set purchases among interested CRL members. She suggested that we
add to our annual "one time call", a category for "tier 2" kinds of
purchases with other CRL libraries.
Patty reminded folks that CRL membership has been paid for centrally by
CDL, but because CRL has discontinued its consortial membership schedule,
individual campuses will pay for membership directly.
* Scholarly Communication meeting at CDL
Margaret reported on a recent meeting at CDL which she and Patty attended.
The participants agreed that faculty awareness of the issues facing
scholars and libraries has been heightened by the Elsevier negotiations,
and that each campus should keep this discussion going. The participants
talked through issues of "standardizing the message", articulating
principles, and creating toolkits for librarians to help scholars who are
interested in seeking alternatives to high-priced, for-profit publishers.
CDL suggests that the most important message currently to get to faculty is
the importance of their retaining copyright. UC Irvine is now running some
pilot workshops for faculty on the issues and procedures involved in doing
this. CDL has discovered that Elsevier allows authors to post
already-published Elsevier articles to an open archive. CDL hopes to assist
faculty to take advantage of this by using e-Scholarship to automate this
process as much as possible, after obtaining the authors consent. The trial
for this will showcase mid-May.
It is likely that a committee will form to help coordinate activities
regarding scholarly communication. This might be a subcommittee of the CDC,
or might be a representative committee reporting to the ULs.
* CDC conference call highlights.
CDL shared a list of titles discussed by JSC that may be purchased with CDL
year-end funds. These include: PCI titles, Serials Set; the Americana
Collections from Readex (Early American Newspapers, Shaw Shoemaker),
historical WSJ and Washington Post, and the 18th Century. Patty would like
to hear from members of bibliographer groups so that she can represent our
wishes in future discussion on this topic. Margaret and Patty will draft an
email asking UCB library staff for feedback.
Patty reported that CDC requested and received comments from the Business
librarians on Business Premiere, published by Ebsco. Milt Ternberg has also
done a very thoughtful analysis in which he prefers Business Premiere over
ABI Inform. CDC is discussing whether to replace ABI Inform with this new
product. If UC decides to do so, the process will look like the one used
when we migrated databases in MELVYL, and will take about one year. Patty
would like UCB library instructors and reference staff to be able to look
at and comment on the Business Premiere product. Margaret will organize a
process for this review, to include sharing Milt Ternberg's very good
analysis on this proposal; and arranging for a local trial of Business
Premiere.
2. Building Shared Collections
* CC members will conduct discussions in the subject councils about the
"Building Shared Collections" document (previously distributed), using the
recent "Draft Behaviors of JSTOR dim archive" as a case study.
Members will report back the results of these discussion to Patty via
email. Patty asked for comments specifically on the idea that "shared
governance" might be changed to "by agreement", assuming that behaviors
would be jointly created for sets of titles volunteered by a campus, as
would the steps to be used for future changes to these behaviors. . She
would like to know what staff think about the behaviors for the dim
archive, and whether or not they can imagine recommending JSTOR titles for
such an archive (or other print titles for which electronic exists)
* Patty reminded folks that the prospective shared print archive is
currently receiving and processing issues for Elsevier and ACM titles. We
are also receiving issues from the following publishers, but processing
these issues into the shared print archives awaits approval from the
university librarians: Wiley, Kluwer, Nature, Institute of Physics,
American Geolphysical Union, and The International Society for Optical
Engineering (SPIE). APA Psych will join this list effective 2005.
* The office of UC Systemwide Library Planning is currently recruiting an
AUL for Shared Print Collections. Patty reported that two candidates have
been interviewed.
3. DiLib
* New requests for funding:
The discussion of the Oxford University Press package which consists of
three modules
raised a number of issues for CC, including CDC's recent advice to "go slow
moving to digital for online reference", not wanting to burden already
stressed library budgets by moving to annual fees for tools we now pay for
only once, or only upon their occasional update. The group thought the
issue of digital reference tools needs to be discussed in a variety of
venues, especially by reference and instruction staff. Patty will suggest
this discussion to Isabel for a future meeting of her reference group.
Specific requests:
i. Margaret will check on the usage of the American National Biography
online. The annual fee for this tool seemed too high to CC members unless
use is commensurate.
ii. Oxford Scholarship Online, a collection of e-texts will not be funded
now by DiLib, awaiting the discussion and recommendations from a
soon-to-be-charged work group on E-Books. Beth Sibley and Jan Carter are
free to pay for these module from their own funds.
iii. CC recommended that DiLib fund Oxford Reference Online for one year on
a trial basis, and that Myrtis be asked to do an analysis of use and value
to the campus. This analysis would help CC discuss future funding of this
kind of resource.
* Retrospective review of electronic resources for possible DiLib funding
Patty reminded CC that we have a number of electronic resources now being
paid for from individual selector funds, that fall into two groups:
1) long-held titles that would have been funded by DiLib from the start,
had DiLib existed, and
2) more recent titles that selectors would be willing to have paid for from
central funds (possibly moving some of their individual funds into DiLib to
fund this.)
Moving titles to DiLib, from either of these groups, would help us have a
better handle on how much the library spends on electronic rather than
print library materials.
CC members thought that it would be interesting to see how many titles fall
into group 1. Patty will draft an email to selectors asking them to name
any digital resources that they currently pay for from their individual
fund that comply with DiLib guidelines for funding. CC would like to
consider whether some long-standing digital resources can be shifted to
DiLib funding, but needs to know first the number and costs of these titles.
CC thought that selectors would be less interested in moving any of their
funds into a central pot, and especially without knowing how and when
centrally funded resources will be examined for possible cancellations in
the future. CC will add a discussion of "evaluating DiLib titles" on a
future CC agenda.
Next meetings:
* May 18 (regularly scheduled; change in time to 10am-11am)
* June 1 - cancel
* June 15 (regular schedule, 10am - noon)
Future Agenda items:
1. E-Book working Group update on charge and call
2. Process for annual review (and possible cancellations) of subscriptions
funded by DiLib