- Writing for Publication: Demystifying the Process
- Effective Name and Title Authority
- Preservation of Library Collections: An Introduction
- Electronic Resources Management Systems: Opening a Can of ERMS
- ALCTS President’s Program - Librarians, Learning and Creativity: A Boundary-Breaking Perspective
- AACR3: The Next Big Thing in Cataloging
- Analog and Digital Preservation Policy: Managing Transition I
- Analog and Digital Preservation Technology: Managing Transition II
- Cataloging Cultural Objects: Toward a Metadata Content Standard for Libraries, Archives and Museums
- Cataloging For School Librarians - It’s Child’s Play! Or Is It?
- How to Assess Your Vendors’ Financial Viability
- Innovations in E-Journal Management
- Managing Across Generations: Traditionalists to Millennials
- MODS, MARC, and Metadata Interoperability
- Preservation Education Needs for the Next Generation of Information Professionals
- Print in the Post Electronic World: When Just in Case Becomes Just in Time
- Saving Sound: Identifying Endangered Recordings and Planning for Preservation of Audio Collections
- Use Measures for Electronic Resources: Theory and Practice
- Why Can’t Johnnie and Jane Get Published: Part 2, Research Methodologies
Pamela Bluh, University of Maryland, School of Law and
Arlene Klair, University of Maryland
The ALCTS Publications Committee and the LRTS Editorial Board sponsored the preconference “Writing for Publication: Demystifying the Process.”
Approximately 40 eager-to-be authors gathered to listen to presentations and participate in exercises devoted to improving their writing techniques and skills. Perhaps it was a blessing to be in an air-conditioned (occasionally very cold) meeting room, away from Chicago’s stifling heat and humidity, but it was more likely a desire to discuss writing with a group of experienced authors, editors, and a publisher, and to receive the encouragement and stimulation to launch a writing project.
Janet Swan Hill, Associate Director for Technical Services at the University of Colorado in Boulder, began with a witty presentation entitled “Is That a Blue Banana? Identifying Research Topics in Technical Services.” Her comments were designed to engage the audience and provide them with some insight on how to get their creative juices flowing.
Pamela Bluh, University of Maryland Law Library in Baltimore, and editor of the ALCTS Papers Series, spoke briefly on “Coping Strategies for the Time-Challenged” and suggested possible ways to fit writing projects into a busy schedule.
Kathryn Hammell Carpenter, Library Director, Purdue University, Calumet, discussed “What’s Right to Write: Subject, Style and Source.” She described reasons to write, suggested how to choose topics, how to find the right style for a topic, and how to use the right style for publication.
Peggy Johnson, Associate University Librarian of the Minnesota Libraries, accomplished the near impossible by making grammar a lively subject in a wonderful segment called “Mind your Ps and Gs: Grammar Isn’t For Sissies.” After a review of the parts of speech and correct use of punctuation, the group was treated to a description of challenges for editors and the various controversies of grammar.
Patrick Hogan, editorial director of ALA Editions, tackled “How to Work With Copyright.” He reviewed the essentials of copyright for authors and explored the dynamic between the interests of authors and those of publishers. Advice was provided regarding wording of which to be wary in publisher contracts.
Sheila Intner, Professor Emerita, Simmons College, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, explained “What Publishing Did For Me.” She stated that publishing is part of all three areas of librarianship: teaching, service and research. Her modest beginning, which was to publish a study of member cataloging copy, led to invitations to speak and appointments to serve on professional committees.
A bonus of this preconference was the opportunity to share ideas for topics, to discuss problems encountered with writing projects, and to discover ways to overcome them. In addition, participants received encouragement and suggestions from experienced writers in an extraordinarily supportive environment.Back to Top
Mary L. Mastraccio, MARCIVE, Inc.
More than seventy individuals signed up for the preconference “Effective Name and Title Authority.” Repetition and variety were used in the sessions to reinforce rules and to transition participants from one aspect of name and series authority records to another. Various aspects of authority control were considered in separate modules that built on each other. Participants could opt to attend select sessions if the full selection of modules wasn’t needed. All sessions were based on the “Basic Creation of Name and Title Authorities” training developed by the ALCTS/CCS-PCC (ALCTS/Cataloging and Classification Section-Program for Cooperative Cataloging) Task Force to Develop Name and Title Authority Training.
The training began Thursday morning with an introduction to authority work, the basics of MARC authority records, and authority resources. Iris L. Wolley (Columbia University) laid a good foundation for the rest of the sessions with a brief overview of the Paris principles, explaining basic authority terminology, and explaining the benefits of authority control. Theory was followed by an examination of MARC records displayed in different utilities, and exercises to identify cataloging principles in a working situation. Some questions raised by eager students during the introduction were answered when Gary L. Strawn (Northwestern University) covered the form and function of the 670 field in Module 3. There was an opportunity during the following sessions to review the construction and use of the 670 field in authority records for participants who were unfamiliar with authority records.
Rachel Lynn Wadham and Robert L. Maxwell, both of Brigham Young University, tag-taught four sessions on personal, corporate, and meeting name authorities. Personal names and corporate bodies were covered in separate modules under the able instruction of Rachel Wadham. Robert Maxwell covered the added complexity of name/title authority records, and sought to remove the fear of name/title and meeting authority records, and to generate excitement over the challenge of creating authorized headings for meeting names as encountered both in cataloging and daily life. The preconference and following ALA conference provide a wealth of examples of meeting names that need established headings.
Gary L. Strawn (Northwestern University) covered the basics of creating geographic names and the difference between a place as a jurisdiction and a location. This was particularly valuable given the volume of local materials published by or about geographic places that are unlikely to ever have an authority record in the Library of Congress Name File (NAF) or Subject Heading list (LCSH).
After nearly two full days of instruction on creating name authority records, participants were informed that further training is required for institutions interested in becoming NACO participants. Kevin Furniss (Denison University) presented a session on the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) Name Authority Cooperative (NACO). He enthusiastically recommended that libraries enhance their catalogs with new name authorities and also join NACO so that their work may benefit the larger community of libraries.
Robert Maxwell chaired the final session on in-house administration and outsourcing of authority work. The discussion focused on how participating libraries handle authority work. Some libraries have done little with authority processing and are just now getting an authority module in their library system. Others have extensive programs in place to ensure the cleanest data for the their library systems. Many participants strongly advocated making the most of all resources available. Libraries were urged to use the skills of copy catalogers and paraprofessional staff as well as the assistance of vendors in maintaining currency and consistency in access terms used in the catalog. Automated authority services should not be thought of as outsourcing, but rather as a partnership between vendor and library, or using a power tool to do an extensive job more quickly, to enable the catalog librarian to work on database maintenance tasks the automated process can’t handle. It was noted that although there are many hard and fast rules in doing authority maintenance, there is much flexibility in how libraries choose to keep up with authority review and updates. Some libraries have overnight services to keep ongoing cataloging current, while others have headings reviewed and updated through an automated service at regular intervals (monthly, every six months, or even annually). Others rely on reports from their ILS system and make manual changes.
All participants were given a large spiral bound trainee manual, Basic Creation of Name and Title Authorities: Trainee Manual. This manual made it easier to follow the lectures and take notes, and is a valuable resource. The various modules provide examples and training. Additionally, the manual will assist cataloging managers to successfully train their staff to create name authority records, particularly when used in conjunction with the instructor’s manual.Back to Top
Deb Nolan, Library Binding Institute
Thomas H. Teper, the Head of Preservation at the University if Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, taught the half-day workshop “Preservation of Library Collections: An Introduction” on Friday, June 24. He has been Head of Preservation at his institution since 2001. Prior to that, he served as the Preservation Reformatting Librarian at the University of Kentucky. Teper received his MLIS from the University of Pittsburgh. His pre-professional positions include work for the University of Pittsburgh, the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.
Teper began the workshop by defining preservation as “an umbrella term that concerns itself with providing access to materials for as long as needed by whoever needs them. Think of it as asset management.” He defined conservation as “a series of physical treatments that will change an object. Its goal to arrest deterioration and provide for continued access in the original format. Reversibility is the over-riding principal.” Restoration was defined as “taking an item and restoring it to its original condition. Restoration is not reversible.”
Teper emphasized “despite everything that librarians find themselves engaged in, our most fundamental purpose remains providing individuals with access to the resources that we hold.” He discussed the life cycle of library collections and the natural enemies of library materials including catastrophic loss (fire, flood, plague, or pestilence), and slower loss including inherent vice, environmental factors, and pests. Teper then discussed preventative preservation of traditional library materials, including monitoring and controlling environmental conditions. He touched on disaster preparedness, pest management, staff and user education, care and handling, facilities maintenance, and deacidification.
Collections maintenance was covered. Teper highlighted the advantages of library binding, illustrating that binding provides access points and order as well as rigid support and protection. He referred to a 1970 ALA study on library binding that demonstrated its cost effectiveness. Additionally, Teper covered conservation issues including treatment for rare or valuable artifacts, the Code of Ethics of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC), binding repairs, flat paper treatments, construction of protective enclosures, and matting and framing.
Analog and digital reformatting were also discussed. Teper discussed preservation photocopying, scanning, and preservation microfilming. He noted that digital reformatting is a “fabulous access tool” but questioned the long-term viability of images in light of media longevity, format/software, and the need for active maintenance. Teper noted that reformatting type impacts future care decisions. He emphasized the importance of digital preservation and the preservation of digital information. The workshop concluded with a discussion of what the future holds, including potential solutions to old issues and technologies. Teper then took questions from the audience.Back to Top
Betty Landesman, National Institutes of Health Library
This half-day afternoon preconference was sponsored by the ALCTS Acquisitions Section, Organization and Management Committee, and co-sponsored by the ALCTS Serials Section Acquisitions Committee, the ALCTS Acquisitions Section, Technology and Education Committee, and the Collection Management and Development Section.
Tim Jewell, University of Washington, gave the first presentation, entitled “Opening the Can: E-resource Management Systems.” He provided the context for E-resource management. Libraries provide access to an increasing number of electronic resources involving more and more licenses. Most ILS systems do not provide good support for managing these resources and licenses.
Jewell described the “Web Hub,” an online resource created by the Digital Library Federation’s (DLF) Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI) steering group. This web site aims to compile activities by vendors, consortia, and institutions relating to electronic resource management. He reviewed some specific E-resource management systems, including MIT’s Vera and Johns Hopkins’ HERMES. Jewell also reviewed the work of the DLF’s ERMI. ERMI is particularly interested in standards for electronic management data and its future migration. ERMI’s report on electronic resource management, published in August 2004, is available on the DLF’s web site.
Jewell concluded his presentation by examining the future of Electronic Resource Management Systems (ERMS). There has been a strong movement by the vendor community as evidenced by continued/accelerated system development. An ALCTS/LITA ERM Interest Group is being formed. Standards to support ERM data needs seem most practical and achievable in the areas of descriptive data, license information, usage information, and authentication, but harder to establish in regard to contact information management, administrative information, workflow and status tracking, troubleshooting and problem tracking, and interoperability among modules.
Adam Chandler of Cornell University provided an overview of an ERMS vendor survey he conducted in 2005. Chandler described Cornell’s use of Innovative Interfaces’ ERM as a standalone system. Cornell extracted data from its Voyager system and moved its A-Z electronic resources list into ERM. The results of the survey will be available on Cornell’s Web site, and had not been posted at the time of the presentation.
John Weible, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, described the ERMS developed at his institution. They chose local development to keep their existing data and statistics, and for flexibility to integrate data and features, since their emphasis is on access to resources and not acquisitions processes. In addition, commercial ERMS had not yet been developed. E-resources are linked to Voyager bibliographic records, and metadata is extracted from MARC records using a batch process. They plan to implement RSS feeds to announce new resources and to use the ERM to update their new SFX system.
Marda L. Johnson, University of Arizona Library, gave a presentation entitled “Slow-ERM or Glow-ERM?” Their environment included paper files of licenses, non-standard formatted data, and inefficient tracking of problems. They needed to find an efficient method of maintaining their links and holdings, provide a more transparent availability of license information, and to allow customers and staff to be more self-sufficient in discovering information. They chose a commercial ERMS (a module of their Innovative Interfaces ILS). Johnson’s presentation described her institution’s implementation of the ERMS.
Scott Wicks of Cornell University gave the final presentation, “Electronic Resource Management as a Standalone.” He feels that the future of ERM is modular. Redundant data can result even with integrated systems. Oracle table-based systems can export data from one system to another to provide links to fund accounting. System upgrades are quick, as they are not tied to an entire system. However, some institutions may lack the level of local systems support necessary.
Questions following the presentation focused on the amount of work involved, who benefits the most (end users, staff, reference librarians), hidden costs, and changes in staff assignment.Back to Top
Amanda Bakken, Northwestern University Library
The ALCTS President’s Program focused on the theme of creativity and leadership, and demonstrated the possibilities that exist when creative potential is maximized, both within librarianship and in other ventures. After a brief introduction by ALCTS President Carol Pitts Diedrichs, Karen Calhoun, Associate University Librarian for Technical Services at Cornell University, discussed the insider’s view of the program’s theme “Librarians, Learning and Creativity.” She described the changing role of libraries, and the ways in which library workers are engaging in creative and innovative projects to meet patrons’ changing needs. She gave specific examples of the possible products of creativity and collaboration within librarianship, including two digital projects at Cornell University, Euclid and Vivo, and vPlants, a digital project resulting from the collaboration of three botanical institutions in Chicago area.
Michael Hawley, director of special projects at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a faculty member at the Media Lab, discussed one of his recent projects, the creation of what became the world’s largest book. His team from MIT traveled to Bhutan, a small country in Asia, to photograph the country. The team found that photographs of the beauty and character of the countryside and people were best exhibited in large format (five by seven feet), making it impossible to find a venue to exhibit their photographs. With the help of a Boston bookbindery, they created the world’s largest book. The book consists of photographs printed end to end on a piece of paper 400 feet long and five feet tall, is folded like a fan, and includes over one hundred photographs. A copy of the book, titled Bhutan: a Visual Odyssey across the Last Himalayan Kingdom, was displayed at the President’s Program and presented as an anonymous donation to Chicago’s Field Museum in Chicago at the conclusion of the program.Back to Top
Brian McCafferty, Wabash College
This program was cosponsored by the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section’s (CCS) Committee on Cataloging: Description & Access (CC:DA) and the ALCTS/LITA/RUSA Machine-Readable Bibliographic Information Committee (MARBI). The development of a new cataloging code is a matter of interest to a significant number of librarians. The Anglo-American Cataloging Rules are being revised, and three speakers actively engaged in this process discussed the context, the process, and some of the features of the developing code. The new rules will be published with the title Resource Description and Access (RDA).
Barbara Tillett, Chief, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress and the Joint Steering Committee (JSC) explained that the new code would simplify the rules for catalogers, provide more consistency, improve collocation, and will encourage use of these rules as a content standard for metadata schema. She traced the development of cataloging rules from Panizzi and Cutter to the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), emphasizing the role of international principles in their evolution. The new rules will draw on the principles expressed in FRBR, will be written to encourage cataloger’s judgment, and will serve as a content standard applicable to any communication standard. The rules are being designed for the digital environment, and though they will be made available in other formats, are envisioned as a web-based product.
Jennifer Bowen, Head of Cataloging, University of Rochester Libraries and Head of Technical Services, Sibley Music Library, Eastman School of Music, and ALA representative to the JSC, reported on the creation process for RDA. A draft of Part 1 of RDA has been distributed in the U.S. only to members, liaisons, and groups affiliated with CC:DA. Nevertheless, over 200 librarians have reviewed and commented on this draft. JSC has received additional comments from bodies outside its constituencies including other metadata communities. Criticisms of the process being too restricted, not well-publicized, and too rushed, and concerns that the draft was difficult to assess without a statement of the underlying principles, have been noted by the JSC and will be addressed as the project proceeds.
John Attig, Authority Control Librarian, Penn State University, and CC:DA member, described some of the features of the new rules. RDA will have a general introduction addressing the principles guiding the rules and their application, and other sections will provide guidance on description and access, the relationships between bibliographic and authority records, and authority control. An appendix will relate the content rules to various standards for the encoding and display of records. RDA is being written to improve description and access of web resources and will address issues concerning main entry, chief source of information, identifying editions, and the concept of “publication,” among other details.Back to Top
Cathy Mook, University of Florida
The purpose of this two-part program was to introduce librarians interested in the field of preservation to the current trends in managing the transition from purely analog based preservation options to a more balanced mix of analog and digital technologies. In addition to opening and closing speakers, there were 6 panelists, three who addressed policy, and three who addressed hardware/technology. Members of the Preservation and Reformatting Section’s (PARS) Reformatting Committee planned this program. Committee chair Cathy Mook served as the program facilitator.
The opening speaker was Bobbie Pilette, Preservation Librarian at Yale. Ms. Pilette urged the audience to view this “shake up” as cause to celebrate. Those in the field of preservation should employ this dual challenge of using digitization as an acceptable reformatting option and preserving digital files for the long term to reinvigorate ourselves, and to rearticulate the importance of preservation to our administrations, patrons and constituencies.
The first panelist in the Policy section was Beth Davis-Brown, Executive Secretariat at the Library of Congress. Ms. Brown-Davis discussed the role of paper-based originals and the concept of last copy repositories. The second panelist was Dwayne Butler, the Evelyn J. Schneider Endowed Chair for Scholarly Communication, University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mr. Butler provided an overview of copyright in the digital age, emphasizing licensing, preservation of digital files, and fair use. The final panelist in the Policy section was Liz Bischoff of OCLC. Ms. Bischoff addressed building sustainability into digital initiatives, allowing them to survive past initial (and generally grant funded) planning and/or training projects, and to grow into full fledged programs.
The first panelist in the Technology section was Robert Breslawski, Chief Technologist of Digital Imaging at Kodak. He discussed the future of microfilm, the benefit of backing up digital files to film, hybrid imaging options, and digital outputs from microfilm. The second panelist was John Walko of Scene Savers, a professional archival service located in Ohio that restores and reformats motion picture films and videotapes. Mr. Walko discussed the reformatting of various analog videotape formats to digital media. He specifically addressed compression issues, including which compression format to use for various kinds of access and encoding rates. The final panelist in the Technology section was Priscilla Caplan, Assistant Director for Digital Library Services, Florida Center for Library Automation. Ms. Caplan described the elements of a trusted digital repository (TDR), the difference between digitization for preservation and digital preservation (the first phrase refers to scanning to create electronic access to materials while the second phrase refers to the process of maintaining digital files over time) and the process of certification of TDRs.
The closing speaker was Michèle Cloonan, Dean and Professor at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, Simmons College. Ms. Cloonan provided a concise and articulate wrap up to the two-part session.Back to Top
Elizabeth Lilker, New York University
Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) is a new cataloging code created by the Visual Resources Association (VRA) to provide a standard set of content guidelines for description and access to cultural materials collected by libraries, archives, and museums. Currently in draft form, it’s due to be published in early 2006. Many of these institutions possess non-traditional materials such as manuscripts, drawings, and objects that are not fully addressed by codes such as AACR. The panel included four speakers, and was moderated by Matthew Beacom (Yale University).
Elisa Lanzi (Smith College) discussed the origin of CCO, following on the development of element sets such as VRA Core and Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA). Lanzi said that CCO was designed to complement AACR2 and Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS) (formerly APPM), and will be more accessible to those communities who generally do not use MARC. Many institutions develop local practices, and CCO was developed to create consistent records throughout these communities.
Ann Whiteside (University of Virginia) described the structure of CCO, characterizing it as more complex than VRA Core, but less so than CDWA. She stated that CCO was designed to work with established standards such as the Getty vocabularies, the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), and the Library of Congress authority files. She provided a brief description of each chapter, noting the examples throughout the text.
Maria Oldal (Pierpont Morgan Library) presented an example of a record created using CCO with MARC21. Oldal’s experiment was to create a record with CCO as a supplement to AACR cataloging in a library OPAC. The record illustrated the flexibility of CCO with MARC, though she noted that not all of the CCO required elements applied to her example. OPAC display labels could easily adapt to CCO, yet several rules of capitalization and punctuation deviate from those traditionally used in AACR cataloging.
Jonathan Furner (OCLC) focused on using CCO’s rules for subject analysis. He discussed subjects as descriptions as well as interpretations. He illustrated this concept with examples using both subject description, such as flowers, and interpretive terms, such as beauty. He noted that non-representational depictions could be more difficult to describe.Back to Top
Nanette Donohue, Champaign Public Library
This program, presented by the Cataloging and Classification Section’s Cataloging of Children’s Materials Committee, featured four speakers, each of whom focused on a particular aspect of cataloging print materials for children.
Margaret Mauer, Head of Cataloging and Metadata at Kent State University, discussed the role of cataloging and authority standards, and presented a bibliography of print and web-based resources that catalogers can use to keep current. The bibliography is available at her web site. All resources listed on the bibliography are currently in print, and many have been updated within the last three years.
Jane Gilchrist, Library of Congress, discussed subject analysis of children’s materials and the Annotated Card Program (ACP), which prepares customized records for materials aimed at specialized audiences, particularly children and young adults. Gilchrist reminded the audience that consistency and predictability are essential when assigning subject headings to children’s materials, and that subject headings should be audience-appropriate. Catalogers can use the standard Library of Congress subject headings or the supplemental list of AC headings, which appear in the first volume of the LCSH books. Gilchrist also discussed the summary notes in catalog records for children’s materials, which appear as the 520 field in the MARC record. Often, the subject headings are drawn from this summary note. Library cataloging educator Joanna Fountain continued the discussion of subject analysis by describing the differences between AC subject headings and Library of Congress subject headings. Fountain gave examples of AC headings and how they differ from LC headings, as well as examples of how to apply AC headings and standard subdivisions. Fountain also covered AC exceptions to standard LC practice, such as the assignment of both broad and specific subject headings to children’s materials.
Follett Library Resources Cataloging Manager Pam Newberg concluded the program with a presentation about purchasing MARC records from vendors. She included a list of questions to ask prospective vendors who will be providing cataloging records, as well as information about what librarians should do with the records once they have been received from the vendor.Back to Top
Virginia Taffurelli, New York Public Library, Science, Industry and Business Library
This program was sponsored by the ALCTS Serials Section (SS) Education Committee, and was co-sponsored by the ALCTS Acquisitions Sections (AS) Education Committee and the ALCTS Serials Section (SS) Acquisitions Committee. In this session, three notable speakers shared their expert views on assessing the financial viability of library vendors. The speakers were David St. Clair Goble, Dean of Libraries, Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, N.C.; James Gray, CEO, Coutts Information Services, Ltd.; and Dan Tonkery, Vice President and Director of Business Development, EBSCO Information Services. Daisy Waters, Assistant Acquisitions Librarian E-Resources, State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, served as the program moderator.
The speakers agreed that, although libraries take risks when prepaying commercial vendors for subscriptions and services, vendors actually take a bigger risk. Using a chart to demonstrate a typical payment scenario, Goble noted that vendors usually pay publishers in October and November, while libraries often don’t pay renewal invoices until December or January. Vendors rely heavily on lines of credit to cover the gap.
Libraries should investigate the financial performance of publicly held companies using services such as Dunn & Bradstreet and Forbes Ranking. Privately held companies in the United States aren’t required to file annual reports, but there are ways for libraries to assess their viability, such as service deterioration, nonsustainable pricing and lack of innovation.
With a banking background, Gobel’s mantra was “Think like a banker (TLAB).” Bankers ask three questions: is there a risk?; what are the consequences?; and how can we moderate that risk? Libraries should annually review their vendors’ financial statements and monitor service performance. Common risks for libraries are prepayments and deposit accounts.
According to Gray, library budgets don’t keep pace with inflation. Consortia play a huge role in negotiating better discounts and lower service charges. In the current market, mergers and acquisitions are common. Gray paints a bleak picture: “Will another vendor go under? Definitely maybe.” Vendors and libraries need to work together as long-term partners.
Tonkery listed “subjective factors for assessing viability.” Look for patterns that indicate trouble. Have there been layoffs? Has there been a sudden change in top management? Is the vendor outsourcing some functions to foreign countries? Has the vendor reduced its presence at trade shows? Are they keeping up with technology? These are just a few of the many warning signs that a vendor is in trouble.
After a lively question and answer period, Tonkery’s closing comment was “don’t be afraid to speak to your vendor.”Back to Top
Doug Kiker, University of Florida
Electronic resource management was a topic of particular interest to ALCTS members at this year’s conference. The ALCTS Serials Section Acquisitions Committee sponsored the program “Innovations in E-Journal Management.” Outgoing chair Sandhya Srivastava of Hofstra University Libraries introduced the four program speakers: Emily McElroy (New York University), Patricia Loghry (University of Notre Dame), Robert Alan (Pennsylvania State University), and Norm Medeiros (Haverford College).
Analyzing crossdepartmental workflow for handling electronic resources has been one method of achieving goals for McElroy at NYU. She described the difficulties involved and strategies employed as the NYU libraries moved forward with a thorough evaluation of responsibilities, information sharing, and past successes.
Loghry addressed the challenge of licensing electronic resources for academic libraries as she detailed the steps Notre Dame takes to acquire access. She also made recommendations and suggestions, such as developing an institutional generic license, establishing a legal translator that the library trusts, and formulating policies for non-compliance remedies.
Alan warned that institutions need a solid rationale and vision for reorganization when electronic resource management is at issue. Since change seems to be a constant in today’s libraries, Alan stressed that it may be most important to identify the transitions that staff must undergo to address change. Hence, the step-by-step processes involved should focus on any approach to reassign responsibilities.
Medeiros concluded the program by sharing his experiences in streamlining e-resource management for the Tri-College Consortium (Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges) through workflow redesign. His work includes Verify, an in-house, grant-funded product developed in conjunction with VTLS. Other recent approaches used by the consortium have been the development of a trials coordinator, development of a Tri-College boilerplate license, and use of the new Harrassowitz service HERMIS.Back to Top
Bill Robnett, California State University, Monterey Bay
The ALCTS Leadership Development Committee sponsored this program. Betsy Simpson, University of Florida, served as moderator for the panel. The panel consisted of four speakers who represented four different generations: Mary Chute (Institute for Museum and Library Services) is a Baby Boomer, Hannah Kwon (a graduate student at the School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers University) is a Millennial, Dena Heilik (Philadelphia Free Library) is a Gen X’er, and Carol Kem (University of Florida) is a Traditionalist. The panelists responded to the same series of questions to illustrate the variety of generational priorities and approaches to the library workplace and collegial relationships.
Kwon described her Millennial peers as natural multi-taskers who view technology as an environment rather than as a collection of tools. They use technology to create and maintain their highly diverse community. Millennials are also discerning consumers who reached maturity in a time of economic prosperity, and they are equally discerning in their education, civic responsibilities, and the role of public institutions. Ms. Kwon described libraries as a service institution that must change to remain relevant to Millennials.
Heilik described her Gen X’er peers as committed to a career but not necessarily to the same organization, and feels that many do not believe in job security. Many Gen X’ers will take risks by leaving employment, since work conditions are a higher priority than position title. Gen X’ers have less unexamined respect for authority. When their questions are not answered, they are less committed to projects or tasks. They are a sharing generation, and as a consequence, work well in a team setting. In general, Gen X’ers are results oriented, and rapid decision-making is important. At the same time constant feedback is essential, so the single performance review is not useful to them.
Chute stressed that workplace issues are often about trust. As a Boomer, she recognizes that she tends to respect authority, but acknowledges that there are different approaches to this work relationship. Due to significant changes in work and personal lives, everyone must be open to problem solving. When generations truly listen to one another, traditional solutions to library challenges may disappear. Ms. Chute believes that the impact of the four generations on library culture is very positive in responding to a changing user group.
Kem represented Traditionalists, whose births span almost the first half of the twentieth century. Her generalities about this group include optimism and tolerance, an appreciation for teamwork, but little regard for top-down management. It is the generation of two world wars and Depression babies. She pointed out that Traditionalists born between 1942 and 1946 initiated societal upheavals in the 60s; it is the generation of Gloria Steinem and Martin Luther King, Jr. Many women of this generation had fewer career options and often followed their husbands’ careers. She believes that it is important that subsequent generations share the knowledge of the feminism movement of the Traditionalists.Back to Top
John Chapman, University of Minnesota
This program drew a large crowd, close to 250 people, and the audience was engaged throughout. Dr. William Moen (University of North Texas); Rebecca Guenther (Library of Congress); Ann Caldwell (Brown University); Marty Kurth (Cornell University); Terry Reese (Oregon State University) were the presenters.
Moen introduced some of the intellectual concepts that underlay the difficulties in cross walking metadata between schemas. He believes no single metadata schema will emerge, but that XML will become entrenched as the common syntax. Overall, libraries must think of themselves as “one node on the information network,” and work to distinguish themselves from others in their environment.
Kurth manages metadata for the Cornell University Libraries, and he discussed the management of large metadata projects. His aim is to reuse MARC records, rather than recreate them, whenever possible. Kurth stressed the need to document and archive tools, templates, scripts, etc. that are used to convert data.
Guenther discussed the structure and use of MODS, highlighting its place in the metadata world. It’s positioned as a more universally acceptable version of the MARC standard, using verbal instead of numeric tags, and made less rich so as to not overwhelm with detail. However, its capability for hierarchical levels of descriptions makes it stand out from other schemas.
Caldwell runs the metadata “shop” at Brown University. Descriptive metadata is handled with MODS, and the MODS data is stored in a SQL database. Brown’s MODS records are created using homegrown templates in an application called NoteTab Pro. Some records are created from scratch, while others are converted from MARC and edited.
Reese concluded the program by demonstrating a new version of his MarcEdit software. Most important are the enhanced conversion tools, using MARCXML as the master format for conversion. MARCXML allows lossless conversion back and forth to MARC; being in a XML format, it also allows for easier conversion into other tagged formats. Reese also demonstrated a tool that displays a MODS record as if it were a MARC record, allowing for editing in the MARC environment.Back to Top
Brian McCafferty, Wabash College
Dr. Karen Gracy and Jean Ann Croft of the University of Pittsburgh reported on the first phase of their study of the current state of preservation education and its applicability to both present and projected needs. Their study examined preservation education at ALA-accredited LIS programs and continuing education programs offered by preservation organizations over the past decade. Their hypothesis was that education programs lack the needed expertise in preservation, particularly in the areas of digital and audiovisual preservation, and that there is a disconnect between the type of instruction being offered and practical needs.
The first phase of this research consisted of a survey to collect quantitative data on course offerings, enrollments, and faculty. The results showed an increase in student interest and rising enrollments for the courses offered. However, only about one quarter of LIS programs offer preservation management courses on an annual basis, and even fewer schools offer digital and audiovisual preservation courses annually. The most common coursework formats addressed paper-based and photographic preservation issues. Coverage of preservation issues involving audiovisual materials and magnetic/optical and digital/electronic materials seems to be growing but aren’t being addressed in depth. Most responding institutions considered their course offerings to be adequate. The majority of faculty who teach preservation courses are part-time or adjuncts. Few schools wish to commit resources to hiring faculty for preservation education.
The survey of continuing education providers showed that most were offering three or more courses annually and with strong enrollments. Instruction in disaster and emergency management had the highest enrollments followed closely by reformatting and digitalization. The instructors for these courses had backgrounds similar to the adjunct faculty teaching most of the courses in LIS programs. Continuing education providers indicated that they planned to expand the number and scope of their offerings.
Future phases of this research project will include a survey to gauge the views of preservation educators followed by in-depth interviews with key respondents.Back to Top
The ALCTS Collection Management and Development Section presented this panel discussion about how electronic resources are changing the way libraries manage and develop collections. Cindy Clennon (CIC Center for Library Initiatives) introduced the speakers and their topics: Carol MacAdam (JSTOR) described the impact of JSTOR on subscriber libraries; Bill DeJohn (Minitex) provided a survey of public and academic library practices; and Jim Dooley (University of California at Merced Library) concluded by discussing plans for electronic resources in a new library.
MacAdam emphasized the completeness of all journal titles included in JSTOR, both in the electronic products and paper archives. JSTOR users have varying levels of trust in this completeness as revealed by a 2003 JSTOR survey. Of those users surveyed, 23% moved their bound volumes of JSTOR titles to remote storage. Another 29% discarded their paper copies of JSTOR titles, and 33% stopped binding new issues of covered titles. Other management solutions included: discontinuing microformats, compact storage, removal of duplicate copies, and collaborative retention programs.
DeJohn detailed the challenges that electronic resources pose for Minitex, a network of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota libraries. Decisions about balancing electronic and print resources are particularly difficult for small and medium sized libraries. Network members are ordering fewer monographs and more audiovisual materials, and are cutting back on print and microformat subscriptions. To facilitate adoption of electronic resources, Minitex has packaged training into webinars that may viewed at each library. They provide a forum for sharing best practices. They are working towards an electronic resource management system, and provide regional promotion of electronic resources.
Dooley discussed the University of California System Libraries’ creation of regional library facilities in a collaborative retention project to house volumes transferred from each library (which retains ownership in order to accommodate ARL statistics and rankings). The regional libraries also house one paper copy of each issue in online serial packages (this is negotiated in all California Digital Library licenses) and share a JSTOR archive created from their print collections with contractual obligations to JSTOR.
The second half of Dooley’s presentation described the creation of the UC Merced Kolligian Library, which will open in 2005. The emphasis of the collection development plan for the new library is on access, not ownership. The new library will rely on electronic resources provided through the California Digital Library, and on monographs supplied via interlibrary loan within the system. They plan to provide resources in the formats desired by patrons (e.g. online journals and government documents, but books and DVDs to support undergraduate majors). Vendors and contractors will supply traditional technical services. Trust is the word Dooley used in his conclusion. We need to trust each other and not focus on ownership. We need to trust our vendors to provide high quality services and archives. We need to trust our decisions and move forward in the post electronic world.Back to Top
Kris Kern, Portland State University
The Preservation and Reformatting Section (PARS), Recording Media Committee sponsored this program.
Moderator Tom Clareson, OCLC, opened the program by remarking that audio preservation, previously languishing, is now receiving deserved attention. The program is the first in a series of three to be presented at the ALA annual conference to address the broad issue of preserving sound recordings. Clareson introduced the speakers: George Blood, Safe Sound Archive, George Blood Audio, L.P., and Charles C. Kolb, Senior Program Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities. Bill Walker, Amigos Imaging Field Services, served as Clareson’s co-planner for the program, which was attended by approximately 140 people. Blood began by reviewing the contents of the compact disc each program attendee received. The two-part CD includes a wealth of information not covered during the program. It includes an audio section demonstrating correct stylus size selections, the disturbing sound of sticky shed syndrome, and 78 rpm capture options. There is also a CD-ROM section containing the presentation’s media, texts and outlines; documents related to planning and standards, including an exhaustive “Guide to Standards and Recommended Practices” prepared by David Seubert; and a comprehensive listing of resources, including the listserv Conservation OnLine featuring a thorough audio preservation resource guide edited by Hannah Frost. Blood stressed that audio preservation is a very new discipline focusing primarily on the information, not the carrier, and lacks long-term storage standards. He described the composition of four analog discs and their differing priority for preservation. He provided a similar review for analog tape.
Kolb discussed funding sources for audio preservation projects. After reviewing key issues for audio preservation, such as intellectual property, storage and reformatting, he outlined problems related to both analog and digital formats, problems and issues of standards and best practices, and reformatting. Citing examples of NEH funded research and development projects, Kolb explained how to apply for and determine the type of grant for a particular project. He emphasized common errors to avoid when preparing grant applications. Kolb recommended obtaining examples of successful projects, and employing a Preservation Assistance Grant funded consultant’s advice when applying for a major preservation grants.
Note: To obtain a copy of the presentation on CD, send request and mailing information to: George Blood, Safe Sound Archive, 21 West Highland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19118-3309.Back to Top
Brian McCafferty, Wabash College
The ALCTS Collection Management & Development Section sponsored this program. Seven speakers addressed the complexities of measuring the use of electronic resources in libraries, where they represent a large and growing portion of collections and expenditures.
Martha Kyrillidou, director of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) Statistics and Measurements Program, and Peter Shepherd, project director for COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources), discussed the difficulties of integrating use data supplied by publishers and distributors of online products and services. Kyrilliou focused on DigiQUAL, a methodology and survey instrument that measures the value of electronic resources for teaching, learning and research. Shepherd described COUNTER, an international cooperative project bringing together librarians, publishers and intermediaries to establish and develop standards for gathering and reporting statistics on usage of online resources. COUNTER has resulted in a code of practice that provides standards for data selection and measurement, report content and formatting, and data processing.
Three representatives of electronic resource providers, Oliver Pesch (EBSCO), Daviess Menefee (Elsevier), and Todd Carpenter (BioOne), described the data collection and reporting services their companies provide and the problems of collecting, reporting and interpreting usage data for resources that are aggregated and accessed in various ways by different libraries and end users.
Brinley Franklin, library director at the University of Connecticut, and Joseph Zucca, librarian at the University of Pennsylvania, addressed the need in libraries for usage measurements to guide librarians in the selection of online resources. Each described efforts at their libraries to identify users of electronic resources, determine how electronic resources are being used by students and faculty, and to establish databases of usage measurements that can be related to other measurements of library resources and services.Back to Top
Marlene Slough, Eastern Illinois University
While the first program on this topic (ALA 2003) provided a broad overview of the research and publication process, “Why Can’t Johnnie and Jane Get Published: Part 2” focused on the specifics of the research paper, research methodologies, data collection procedures, data presentation and analysis, and finally, getting published. The program panelists were: Trisha Davis, Head of Serials & Electronic Resources at the Ohio State University Libraries; Claudia J. Gollop, Associate Professor & Associate Dean of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Peggy Johnson, Associate University Librarian at the University of Minnesota; and Barbara Moran, Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This well-attended and well-received program was sponsored by the ALCTS Acquisitions Section Committee on Research and Statistics, and cosponsored by the ALCTS Serials Section’s Research and Publications Committee, the ALCTS Cataloging and Classification Section’s Research and Publications Committee, and the ACRL Research Committee.
Moderator Trisha Davis began the program by addressing ways to become involved and successful in the publishing process. Peggy Johnson focused her remarks on the research process and writing. She described the research process as a structured sequence, and the research paper as sharing the same elements as the process with the addition of an introduction and conclusion. She shared problems common to research papers. Barbara Moran continued by describing various research methodologies, the importance of selecting the appropriate methodology, and the researcher’s role and responsibilities. Claudia Gollup described methodologies used in LIS research and the final steps in the research process. In the last portion of the program, Peggy Moran provided an editor’s perspective of the publication review process, commonly applied review criteria, and concluded by sharing a list of tips for success.
The program included opportunities for audience participation, with small group activities and panelist feedback, as well as large group question and answer sessions. In addition to biographical and contact information for the speakers, attendees received handouts, including a list of tips to get papers published, a research process diagram, a glossary of basic research terminology, and a selected bibliography of refereed library science journals. Audience enthusiasm, along with positive program evaluations, indicated a strong interest in a Part 3 on this topic.Back to Top