Attended by: Gillian Boal (for Barclay Ogden), Gail Ford (recorder), Jim Gordon, Rebecca Green, Marlene Harmon, Susana Hinojosa, Bernie Hurley (chair), Gary Peete, David Sullivan, Camille Wanat. Guest: Sheila Wekselbaum. Absent: Norma Kobzina, Margaret Phillips, John Roberts
Agenda
I. Announcements
II. Referrals
III. RLF Persistence Policy
IV. CDC Shared Print
V. Digital Preservation
VI. CDC Update
VII. Preservation Program Plan
Action Items
ú Bernie will send an email to selectors about the RLF Persistence Policy
ú Bernie will send an email to selectors and refstaf on procedures to use to get items digitized
ú Barclay will send an updated Preservation Program Plan to Circulation Service Supervisors
Meeting Contents
I. Announcements
ú Spending down 19900 funds. Bernie reported preparing a document for Chuck describing the strategy developed in January to spend down carry forward 19900 funds. Bernie shared a copy of this with selectors.
ú Limited Circ at NRLF. Bernie reported that on June 9 the Board of the Regional Library Facilities will be hearing two proposals for how to best integrate NRLF’s “limited circulation” designation into a new consolidated practice for circulation periods. Depending on what the Board decides, Berkeley and NRLF may need to establish procedures for how selectors can review their “limited circulation” NRLF holdings.
ú Open content alliance. In October 2005, UC joined the Open Content Alliance (OCA), a group working toward making content freely available to the public over the internet. The OCA pilot project involves UC providing space at NRLF and works in American Literature (published before 1923 and out of copyright); Yahoo funding the staff to do scanning of this material, and the Internet Archive providing staff and scanners custom designed to efficiently do this work Preservation reports no damage to materials. The digital books will come to Berkeley for quality control review (funded by CDL). The resulting searchable .pdfs will be available through the Internet Archive and Yahoo. Records will appear in UC catalogs.
The operation is highly successful and may lead to identification of further projects (assuming funders can also be found.)
ú Tom Leonard charged a Custodial Collections Task Force, chaired by David de Lorenzo, to review the intake of, cataloging of, and custodial authority over special collections.
ú CC will have a joint meeting on June 20 including both members whose terms are up and those who will continue, and Chuck.
II. Referrals
Sheila Wekselbaum reported on how the recommendations from the Referrals Task Force have played out in the 6 months since their approval. Sheila believes the changes have been very beneficial – invoices are paid right away and material moves through the TS system much more quickly.
CC agreed with Sheila’s suggestion that in cases where no selector in The Library chooses to shelve an item, that Sheila may refer these items to an Affiliated Library.
The Task Force made some recommendations on referring serials. Rebecca Green suggested that we revisit these recommendations after the Technical Services Review is complete.
III. RLF Persistence Policy
Bernie will send an email to selectors, reminding them of the newly adopted RLF persistence policy. This policy benefits all UC campuses, including Berkeley, and although a few items might merit being marked as “non-persistent”, Bernie expects instances of this to be low. Bernie will address selector’s requests on a case by case basis.
IV. CDC Shared Print
Bernie reported that CDL has hit its dollar limit for processing shared prospective print material and would/will need help to fund further efforts on a cost-share basis. He also reported that it’s getting more difficult to negotiate free or low-cost print subscriptions for this purpose as contracts come up for renewal with publishers.
CDC prepared on this topic Summary of CDC discussions on prospective print archives and licensed content. Campus discussion draft 5/12/06, proposing these point for discussion:
Based on these observations, CDC has come to a broad consensus on the following:
… that a shared print archive should be considered only when all or most of the following criteria apply.
• The print copy is the “copy of record.”
• There is no trusted digital repository for the title.
• The title is not being systematically archived in a trusted print archive.
• The title is of broad (though not necessarily unanimous) interest on UC campuses.
Bernie had previously sent to document to CC and the subject councils.
Council representatives reported back these comments:
ú the CDC document posits that use of the Elsevier title print archives has been low, and that this might be an environmental fact arguing for the diminished importance of print archives. Some selectors at Berkeley asked that a similar review of usage be done of use on JSTOR or another print archive with primarily non-scientific titles.
ú document needs to define “trusted digital repository” and “trusted print archive”. As we move to implementation, it would help considerably to have lists of what entities meet these definitions. Should “used on a periodic basis” be part of the criteria for digital repositories? Visual images must be acceptable for digital repositories to be acceptable replacements for print archives.
ú there was cross-disciplinary concern for the “print” as “artifact” – there are many instances where material is included in the print, that is excluded from the digital form of journals – material of importance to sociologists (including submission policies, advertisements, insets, etc.)
ú it might be useful to review the criteria from an additional perspective: do these criteria provide useful direction as we go into this year’s negotiations, helping to determine whether we request a print subscription or not.
ú publishers need to put digital supplements to print items into their publishers archives (which many don’t do now.)
ú a move to “fly” without a print archive would need good outreach to faculty
ú Sciences would rather fund new content over archiving print + digital
ú that adopting such a strategy might undermine our efforts in get publishers to create dependable archives.
V. Digital Preservation – CDL
UC’s will largely be relying on Portico or other national entities to be archiving electronic journals by big commercial publishers.
CDL’s Digital Repository is now accepting deposits. In general, it will be used primarily to house local digital assets (such as EAL stone rubbings, photos of special collections, etc.) Bernie will send out an email to selector and refstaff describing the steps they need to take to propose digitization projects. He notes that at this time, digitization is done by our Digital Imaging Lab, a recharge operation, and that selectors would need to be able to fund their own projects.
VI. CDC Update
ú Taylor and Francis has made an initial proposal for a “big deal” package of titles. Talks continue.
ú CDC, at the behest of the UL’s, has been developing new ways to think about how journal prices should be set. We want to move away from the more traditional negotiations where prices have been based on historical print subscriptions. CDC is considering ways to move toward value-based pricing. There are two options being thought through a) pay base + production price increase, b) reevaluate base by looking at titles in terms of new indices like those in the Bergstrom MacAfee database. Discussion continues.
VII. Preservation Department Program Plan for Protecting At-Risk Materials
A sub-group of CC is working with Barclay on his draft proposal. This proposal will be sent to Circulation Supervisors for comment. The Program, to use special funds to bind high-use materials from the subject specialty libraries, is scheduled to begin in October.
Go to Collections Council minutes
Copyright © 2008 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
Server manager contact