Midwinter 2013 Forums

ALCTS Forum

Lead, Publish, and Teach with ALCTS!

By Jeanne Drewes, Library of Congress

The ALCTS Forum “Lead, Publish, and Teach with ALCTS!,” held on Monday, January 28, 2013 from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. answered questions about volunteering for ALCTS committees and contributing through publishing, and teaching. Current and former ALCTS elected officers, editors of ALCTS publications and members from division committees including Continuing Education, Leadership Development, Membership and Publications were on hand to answer questions. Short presentations provided an overview of opportunities in all areas.

Speakers included ALCTS President-elect Genevieve Owens; Valerie M. Buck, ALCTS Leadership Development Committee member; Deborah Ryszka, Membership Committee Chair; Alice Platt, ALCTS Newsletter Online Editor; Publications Committee Chair M. Dina Giambi; and Keri Cascio, ALCTS Continuing Education Committee Chair. ALCTS Monographs Editor Jeanne Drewes and LRTS Editor Mary Beth Weber also attended.

The audience asked questions and the forum ended early to allow for individual questions to be addressed to any of the attending ALCTS leaders. More than fifty attendees found answers to their questions about how easy it was to volunteer, and perhaps more importantly, found the support system to help new members find the best volunteer opportunity for their talents.

Collection Management Section (CMS) Forum

Scholarly Communications and Collections: From Crisis to Creative Response

by Julia Frankosky, Michigan State University

The CMS Forum, cosponsored by CMS and ACRL Science and Technology Section, was held Sunday, January 27, from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The forum featured two speakers who discussed how their institutions are addressing scholarly communication issues, such as providing education and information to faculty about these issues and providing funds for publishing in Open Access journals.

Lori Critz, Head of Faculty Engagement, Georgia Institute of Technology, provided an overview of how her library began to put an emphasis on knowledge of scholarly communication issues by including scholarly communication in position descriptions beginning in 2011. In 2012, all liaison librarians had to submit revised position descriptions which included scholarly communication as well as data. Liaison librarians at Georgia Tech have to know enough about scholarly communication issues to speak knowledgeably to faculty and students and to help them with identifying new models and patterns of scholarship in their disciplines. These librarians also actively promote the value of their institutional repository, SMARTech, encouraging people to submit content, especially items that require long-term preservation or that merit sustained access.

In 2011, her library started a scholarly communication collaborative based on a similar group developed at the University of Minnesota Libraries. This collaborative was comprised of both a rotating group and a permanent group of liaison librarians who sought to create a plan to educate librarians and campus. This group aimed to provide a targeted approach to scholarly communication, while also creating more librarian advocates who could inform their faculty and researchers about scholarly communication issues. This collaborative group was disbanded in October 2012 when a scholarly communication librarian was hired.

Critz also spoke about Georgia Tech’s e-science strategic agenda, which seeks to strengthen and advance a strategy for supporting computational scientific research. The individuals involved created a list of ten priorities in regards to developing collaborative tools for research and the following were recommended to the Dean:

  • Establishing safe and secure collaborative site for sharing research
  • Developing online collaborative tools, such as meeting rooms and a campus-level dropbox utility that can be shared with researchers from other institutions as well
  • Utilizing metadata to facilitate discovery and access to these tools
  • Development of a recommender service that would allow experts and users to provide commentary about the tools, as well as suggestions to others as to when and how to use them
  • Allow for versioning maintenance and access to open source tools that users can modify to fit their needs and share with others, while allowing access to all created versions of the tools

When it came to developing a policy on Open Access, the library at Georgia Tech decided that this should be addressed by the faculty; while the library helped facilitate the initial conversation, provided resources, and willingly answered any faculty questions that arose, they stepped aside when it came to creating a policy. A committee in the Faculty Senate was formed to address this issue and the proposed policy was accepted at a General Faculty meeting in November 2012. Additional information about their Open Access (OA) policy can be found in Georgia Tech's online Policy Library.

The next step in this process will be to start an Author Fee Fund to cover costs associated with publishing in an OA journal. Critz explained during the Q&A session that it would not be feasible at her institution to fund the Author Fee Fund from the collections budget.

Robin Champieux, Scholarly Communication Librarian, Oregon Health & Science University, spoke about OHSU’s experience with creating an Open Access Publishing fund pilot program. Ms. Champieux explained that we’re faced with two key problems: the cost for materials is rapidly increasing, but the funding available in libraries is decreasing, and there’s a growing divide between user’s expectations and the research potential of available content. Openness of information through Open Access is the solution to these problems. However, there are costs associated with Open Access which can create a barrier for authors. OHSU’s solution was to create a fund for authors to use to pay these costs.

OHSU’s pilot program, which could be used by any employee or student at OHSU, began in October of 2012 and was supported with Foundation money. By December 2012, all of the provided funds were depleted, reflecting the success of this program. For the future, Ms. Champieux hopes that funding will be supplied from the Vice President for Research or the Provost’s Office.

Continuing Resources Section (CRS) Forum

Linked Data for Holdings and Cataloging: The First Step Is Always the Hardest

by Stephanie Gehring, University of Houston

The CRS Holdings Information Committee and the CRS Cataloging Committee held a joint forum Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 3 p.m. During the first half of the forum, Eric Miller and Richard Wallis presented information on linked data and holdings.

Eric Miller of Zepheira spoke about linked data as the process of sharing and connecting data on the web through URIs and RDF. Bibliographic Framework, or BibFrame, is a linked data model for recording bibliographic data, replacing MARC. It shows relationships between works and instances and creators that MARC fails to do. For example, through the use of linked data a user could see that a particular library collection has book; that this book was published, first, as a hardcover and then as a paperback; that is was originally published in one language and later translated into another; and translated by whom. Some early testers of BibFrame include the Library of Congress and OCLC.

OCLC's Richard Wallis spoke about some of the advances that OCLC has made using linked data. Schema.org is a collaborative project between OCLC, Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and Yandex to create controlled markup vocabulary lists that webmasters can use to provide better search returns for the end user. Another project OCLC has been working on is creating linked data in WorldCat. Bibliographic data for book and journal titles in WorldCat have had schema.org vocabulary added to the metadata, making it available to search engines. OCLC has also created a Facebook application, which allows users to locate books in nearby libraries and makes reading recommendations based on other interests highlighted in the user’s Facebook profile.

The second half of the session consisted of two presentations from libraries using linked data. Violeta Ilik, the continuing resources librarian at Texas A&M, demonstrated how she used Viewshare, a free, open source visualization platform, to display data about faculty in the Mathematics Department. Viewshare allows data to be exported in a variety of formats and enables different users to create different views with the same data. Ilik input data about faculty members such as research areas, year in which Ph.D. was earned, and Ph.D. granting institution. Once data is entered into Viewshare, it can showcase information that might not be known otherwise. For example, the Texas A&M Mathematics department has promoted Operator Theory as its strongest research area for a number of years. However, the data viewed though Viewshare showed that Partial Differential Equations is actually where the department is focusing its greatest amount of research.

Jeremy Myntti, head of cataloging & metadata services at the University of Utah, also discussed his use of Viewshare to create a Western Soundscape Archive, highlighting numerous birds, frogs, toads and mammals living in the Western United States. Jeremy organized his data to show maps of animal’s habitats by linking to Google Maps; show pictures of the animals; hold a sound file related to the animal, and display both common and scientific names. Once the data was compiled, he exported it to CONTENTdm, illustrating one way in which Viewshare can be used. Then, he was able to send the data from CONTENTdm into a spreadsheet that could be sorted to see where he was missing data or view lines that only contained complete data.

Both Ilik and Myntti talked about one of the greatest benefits of using a tool such as Viewshare with linked data is the ability to use existing data is new ways that had not been previously possible.

A recording of the session is available online from http://eventscribe.com/2013/ALA-Midwinter/aaSearchByPresentation.asp. Look for “Linked Data for Holdings and Cataloging” in the alphabetical list.

Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS) Forum

E-journal Preservation

By Shannon Tennant, Elon University

The Preservation and Reformatting Section Forum, held Sunday, January 27 from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m., was moderated by Anne-Marie Willard, past chair of PARS. The two speakers were Winston Atkins, Preservation Officer at Duke University, and Robert Wolven, the Associate University Librarian for Bibliographic Services and Collection Development at Columbia University.

Atkins began by describing a project undertaken by Duke University and The Keepers Registry. They asked two questions: Are e-journals being preserved? What is involved in restoring journals to users if they take advantage of one of these services? The Keepers Registry allows users to search on an ISSN and see which agency is preserving a journal title, and which specific issues have been preserved. However, a title-by-title examination was daunting. First Atkins created a spreadsheet of Duke’s e-journal titles. This spreadsheet had 227,000 rows! The Keepers Registry allows for bulk uploads, but can only load titles with ISSNs or e-ISSNs. This restriction cut the list of studied titles down to a little more than 60,000. Of this subset of titles, 22 percent of e-journal holdings have been gathered by at least one agency. The answer to the second question proved complicated. A library seeking to rebuild its holdings for a title might be required to go to several different agencies, all of which preserve different issues, and there might still be gaps.

Robert Wolven’s talk was titled “Setting a Strategic Agenda for E-Journal Preservation.” He spoke about the 2CUL project, a collaboration between Cornell University and Columbia University Libraries for e-resource management. Cornell did a study comparing their e-journal holdings to LOCKSS and Portico, and found that from 15 to 25 percent of journals with ISSNs are being preserved. But what about the many e-resources that do not have ISSNs? A broader study was conducted with The Keepers Registry, and representatives from the libraries met in Washington D.C. to discuss the results. The key findings indicated 22-26 percent of e-journal titles with ISSNs were preserved. LOCKSS and Portico together covered 26.1 percent of 2CUL’s holdings. There was considerable overlap between the different preservation agencies.

However, it is important to remember that only approximately 50 percent of e-journals have ISSNs and could be included in the study. Many types of e-resources such as trade publications, newsletters, annual reports, and conference proceedings often lack ISSNs. Also, coverage for a title might not include every single issue. Generally, coverage seemed to be lacking for titles available from aggregators (25-30 percent), freely available titles (22-25 percent), and East Asian materials. Different vendors had better coverage of different types of titles; for example, HathiTrust and Portico did well with historical e-journal coverage. The participants at the meeting wanted a list of priorities to focus on, tools to use for large-scale analyses, and a mobilization plan that could eventually extend to global e-resources as well. They wished to see more libraries doing similar studies to gather better data about trends. It was agreed that more stakeholders should be involved (libraries, publishers, international partners) and that the findings should be distributed in a way that libraries can use. The Washington meeting will issue a report of its findings and recommendations, and also an action agenda.

Publisher-Vendor-Library-Relations (PVLR) Forum

Enhanced E-books and Libraries

by Karen Wilhoit, Wright State University Libraries

On Monday, January 28 at 8:30 a.m., Co-Chair Ellen Gibson opened the Publisher-Vendor-Library Relations (PVLR) Interest Group Forum with the question, “What are enhanced e-books, and how do libraries meet users expectations?”

Jake Zarnegar, <a href=””>Silver Chair Information Systems</a>, talked about the changing e-book landscape and suggested that “enhanced” means different things to different people. He outlined an e-book continuum, beginning with basic e-books that offer file downloads and/or online reading interface with straightforward text and images. These basic e-books may be open or have Digital Rights Management (DRM) restrictions and may be device specific. The enhancement continuum can include the following in various combinations:

  • Add-ons: bundled content, video, interactive forms, etc. that may be delivered separately or integrated with the content
  • Updates and linking: Updated content, skills assessments, adaptive learning enhancements, internal linking for navigation within book, external linking to supplemental information
  • User enhancements: In-book enhancement by instructors and/or students. Student notes, Instructor notes, questions, syllabi may be incorporated
  • New purchase models: subscription, bundles, rentals, ad-supported
  • Device reach: optimizing content for multiple devices, screen resolutions

At the end of the spectrum is the e-book app, which may include any or all of the above enhancements. In this case, Zarnegar notes that the authority moves from the book to the app itself, and that, in fact, the book content may be unrecognizable as such.

Susie Stroud, <a href=””>Credo Reference</a>, focused on how a platform that moves away from the PDF format and its inherent limitations can bring together e-book content with other library content, including tutorials and research tips. Enhanced content such as video, audio and animations can be linked by subject. The platform can also provide innovative ways to move around in available content, and XML formatting can lead to an enhanced user experience.

Challenges to development include convincing publishers to participate in a platform that aggregates content, acquiring clear rights to supplemental content, and a development process that is time-consuming and expensive.

Nancy Gibbs, Duke University, described several examples of enhanced e-books that have been created at Duke. One title on music that was originally issued as a print book with an accompanying CD has been converted to electronic and is now offered on Amazon as both a basic e-book (without accompanying sound) and an enhanced e-book. At Duke, both professors and classes have created online textbooks some with accompanying materials such as photographs and lab notes. Others have been created by students in the digital humanities.

The University has established a task force to try to determine what users want in e-books. Gibbs believes that librarians must be more proactive in acquiring, licensing, cataloging and providing access to these materials.

Andrea Twiss-Brooks, University of Chicago, focused on the impact of enhanced e-books on libraries. She outlined several factors that impact the acquisition of enhanced e-books:

  • Demand: fiction vs. non-fiction, context for usage, PDF for portability
  • Pricing/licensing: flat or reduced budgets, single-user vs. multi-user pricing, ILL and reserve restrictions
  • Support/technology: app distribution, user authentication, multiple platforms, DRM

Brooks also discussed questions that she finds worrisome in the e-book environment. She wonders about costs, preservation of content, credibility of content when e-book content is hidden behind an app, lack of standardization, and the ability to maintain the historical record of scholarship.

After the panelists’ presentations, the floor was opened for questions. Gibbs was asked about the student-created textbook that was not preserved after the course ended. She replied that the professor chose not to preserve the text because he wanted the next class to create their own. Zarnegar added that generally publishers are not interested in “versioning;” they tend to see this as a library responsibility. Another question talked about the vetting of content as the book disappears. Citing McGraw-Hill’s Access Medicine as an example, Zarnegar said that in a sense the brand becomes the authority. Twiss-Brooks added that traditionally academic and professional societies have played a role in this process. The final question focused on ILL and sharing e-books; the panelists could see a framework for sharing basic e-books, but they felt that sharing enhanced e-books is more problematic.

RDA Update Forum

By Miloche Kottman, University of Kansas

The Resource Description and Access (RDA) Update Forum was held Sunday, January 27 at 3 p.m., and featured five speakers: Beacher Wiggins, Library of Congress; Troy Linker, ALA Publishing; John Attig, Joint Steering Committee; Phil Schreur, Chair, Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC); Cynthia Whitacre, OCLC.

Beacher Wiggins discussed the Test Coordinating Committee's final update on the progress and actions undertaken to meet the recommendations made in the final report of the Test Coordinating Committee. Chris Oliver, the copy editor for improving the readability of RDA, has completed rewording chapters 6, 9, 10, 11 and 17. The committee decided that all chapters in RDA will be reworded. In November 2012 the document “Bibliographic Framework as a Web of Data” was posted on the Bibliographic Framework Initiative website for public review. A new website for the initiative has been launched. Six organizations were designated Early Experimenters: British Library, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, George Washington University, National Library of Medicine, OCLC, and Princeton University plus LC. LC has mounted more than 150 documents, videos, and quizzes pertaining to RDA on the Catalogers Learning Workshop website. Anyone can use these resources for non-commercial purposes; there is no need to contact and/or ask the Library of Congress for permission.

Troy Linker discussed the new RDA Toolkit releases, which will occur on the second Tuesday of even months. Fast-track changes will be included in each release. The April release will contain the revisions that resulted from the November JSC meeting. Beginning in April 2013, AACR2 will only be available online via the RDA Toolkit. To prepare for this change, the AACR2 links have been updated so that Catalogers Desktop users with a subscription to RDA will still be able to view AACR2 in the Desktop interface. Links to several other resources hosted by Cataloger’s Desktop were also added, along with the capability to turn these links off.

John Attig discussed the recent RDA Joint Steering Committee (JSC), held in November 2012. Barbara Tillett will remain as chair through 2013; Gordon Dunsire will be chair for 2014-2015. David Reser will be LC’s representative. The JSC discussed 57 proposals along with the 399 responses to the proposals. Information about the proposals and decisions can be found at the JSC website. There were several revisions to Chapter 2, for example, instructions to clarify basis of description and source of information, addition of an option in 2.2 to supply an edition statement and reinstated the sentence “Consider all online resources to be published” to RDA 2.8.1.1. There are also changes to Chapter 6, which clarifies the use of selections as a work attribute which will affect the order of MARC fields. The JSC also approved the proposed revision to merge the instructions for government and non-government subordinate bodies into a single set of instructions. Other activities of the JSC include publishing the rewording of Chapters 6, 9-11 and documenting the fast track changes in the secretary documents on the JSC website. Note: fast track changes are not included in the revision history of the RDA Toolkit.

Philip Schreur discussed RDA from the Program for Cooperative Cataloging's perspective. The PCC RDA BIBCO Standard Record (BSR) was posted on the website January 2013. The BSR combines guidelines for all formats into a single document and includes supplemental requirements for digital formats. The Task Groups on Access Points for Expressions, Hybrid Record Guidelines and Relationship Designator Guidelines turned in their reports in October 2012. The reports are on the PCC website. In regards to undifferentiated name headings, the PCC has outlined some key concepts, issued interim guidelines and established a Task Group. Phase 2 of the changes to the LC/NACO authority files will start March 4, 2013 and affect approximately 328,000 records.

Cynthia Whitacre noted that OCLC issued a new RDA policy statement which will go into effect March 31, 2013. Some highlights from the policy statement include: OCLC will not require libraries to use RDA; separate records for the same manifestation using different cataloging codes are not allowed; for access points, use form found in LC/NACO authority file regardless of whether coded for RDA; may update a bib record to RDA regardless of encoding level; existing General Materials Designators (GMDs) will not be removed from AACR2 records until March 31, 2016, however if re-cataloging a record using RDA, remove the GMD. OCLC will machine-manipulate English language records to incorporate various useful RDA practices. These changes will not occur until after March 31, 2013 and will be announced on the OCLC-CAT list, on OCLC’s website. They also plan to host a webinar.

A recording of the session is available online from http://eventscribe.com/2013/ALA-Midwinter/aaSearchByPresentation.asp. Look for “RDA Update Forum” in the alphabetical list.