Seuss Room, Geisel Library
Present: Joan Ariel, Sherri Barnes, Ellen Broidy, Sam Dunlap, Phoebe Janes,
Elliot Kanter, Diana King, Sheila O’Hare, Beth
Sibley, Vicki Williamson,
1.
Logistics
Introductions,
lunch and dinner plans, etc.
2. A visit
from Phyllis Mirsky, UCSD Deputy Librarian and AUL
for Collections
Phyllis
welcomed the group to the UCSD Libraries and provided a brief history of SOPAG
and the JSC. The UL Advisory group meets about once a month and they created
SOPAG. SOPAG is to the UL group as the AULs are to the ULs. Twice a year SOPAG and ULs
meet together. They have advisory groups that report to them, i.e., HOTS, HOPS,
CDC etc. The
most visible part of this group to our users – other than MELVYL – are the user services.
JSC is the connection between CDL and SOPAG. Our group communicates with JSC so that JSC
can advise SOPAG and CDL. CDC also works
to figure out finances for collections, campus shares, etc.
CDC is
beginning now to discuss post-CMI (Mellon Grant-funded Collections Management
Initiative). What should our collections
look like in the electronic age?
We’re
entering into a new age of collection management. Unfortunately, the budget is probably going
to force us to do some things sooner than we would have liked to. It’s going to
be harder to make the resources we have go
further.
EK: We’ve just learned very recently about the
purchases that were approved for EEBO, Gerritsen,
etc. (ProQuest databases). Is it true CDL was asked to participate in
digitizing more material to expand the collection and they declined to do
so?
PM: It will probably come back to how can the
campuses help contribute because CDL isn’t set up to do that sort of thing.
JA: How did this deal with ProQuest
happen?
PM: CDC knew the bibliographer groups wanted
these databases, so they asked Proquest what kind of deal would they be willing to
negotiate for the UC system overall instead of individual databases and
campuses. Something changed at ProQuest and they took away some of their requirements to
maintain fiche of EEBO, get MARC records, etc. which helped the deal get
approval.
EB: At the CDL level, is there any sense we’ve
learned anything from the CMI project?
PM: We only have six months’ worth of data, so,
no, we haven’t really learned anything in such a short time. The publicity varied from campus to
campus. PM thinks we’ll find something
interesting after UCSC Libraries cancel everything in print that they have
electronically (will happen in January 2003).
We’ve
learned that there are some titles in the sciences that they need the hard copy
for because of the graphics. Also, there
are still some articles missing from the electronic formats.
EB: Is there any ongoing conversation at the CDC
level about buying ebooks system wide?
PM: There was a task force about a year ago that
looked at the packages available then.
They said they couldn’t figure out any advantage to doing an ebook project at the system-wide level. Unless the publishers give us a price break,
there’s no advantage for us.
EB for
Dan: Should this group be submitting
names to suggest Resource Liaisons when a new database has been acquired?
PM: It would be fine for us to take the
initiative and send names to CDL. They
need volunteers. No matter where the
names come from, they will be vetted through the SOPAG process.
The group
thanked Phyllis for her time and her comments.
3.
Agenda Review: additions,
deletions, rearrangements
4.
Approval of December 2001 minutes
A few
suggestions were made to JA for minor changes and minutes were approved. EK
reminded the group that he needs electronic files of minutes for the last two
meetings in order to put them on the web page.
5.
Date and place for next meeting
Did anyone
look into videoconferencing?
UCB charges
something like $100/hour.
UCLA
charges around $65 hour and has a few other restrictions.
6.
Campus Reports
ACTION NOTE
for future discussion: Talk about how jobs are structured at various campuses:
collection development, reference, instruction, hiring practices, etc.
LOS ANGELES: They’ve had three vendors come in for their
OPAC. Then sent
representatives to various Midwestern university libraries to check out their
systems. Now
doing focus groups w/ faculty.
OTNG=Orion the next generation.
Trying to identify what’s important to faculty in an OPAC.
They’re
losing about 60 percent of their administrative staff (UL, AULs)
due to retirement.
ERB is
still happening to dynamically generate subject web pages. Not going well.
Also, they
did go ahead and buy the Nation for ten years.
7.
Discussion/preparation for Patty Ayala (Proquest)
Presentation
She’ll be
demonstrating Heritage Quest, Gerritsen, Historical Newspapers.
We would like to see APS Online, EEBO, PCI Full-text, and Gerritsen.
8.
Resumption of Shared Purchase of Microfilm Sets (EK and EB)
Are people
checking the lists before they purchase a micro set that is already owned in
the system? Some are,
some aren’t. Also, we should be using
the CRL collections more.
EB thinks
we should check the OCLC list of major microfilm sets to see if there’s
anything we should be trying to buy and if the cataloging is available since
that would be more helpful than the guides.
Get to the list from the OCLC web site www.oclc.org
EK
mentioned the ACLU set as a possible shared micro acquisition.
Discussion
ensued about trying again to come up with a system-wide list of micro sets for
history. It’s a tremendous project that
isn’t possible to do with our current tools (Melvyl). Maybe “new” Melvyl
will have a more sophisticated search mechanism that will make this project
possible.
EB: Is anyone willing to take on coordinating
this project? We could probably get the
holdings information directly from the publishers. It’s important, but overwhelming.
ACTION: Ellen, Joan, and Elliot will attempt to
gather the needed information to present at the next June meeting.
Back to the ACLU Archives for about $35,000.
That would be about $5833 per campus if UCLA, UCB, UCSB, UCSD, UCI, and UCD
share the cost. Where would
the set be housed? How do we
actually coordinate the payment? EK
offered to have UCSD take care of the payment structure. Does Part II
exist? Most feel it should be housed at
SRLF.
9.
CDL Issues/SURVEYS
a) JSC Survey and Call (due
Early
Encounters (
HeritageQuest (Proquest/CH)
Early
American Imprints (Readex)
-
estimated
list price $87,500 w/ annual maintenance fee $2000 (for
-
no
product to actually see yet
HarpWeek
(recently purchased by CDL)
Evans
Hein Online
(back issues of legal periodicals using the JSTOR model)
b) Vendor
packages
Which
campuses acquired what and how are campuses handling funding?
NISC:
UCD got all
and came out of individuals selectors funds
UCB already
had all of them already
UCI thinks
it’s coming out of a central fund
UCLA part
is coming out of a central fund, part by Central Library, part by YRL
Reference, and then a few separate funds (African Studies, Women’s Studies,
Ethnic Studies)
UCSD
Central fund w/ maximum number of users
Maximum
amount per campus was $4871, CDL to cover the rest.
ProQuest:
Is
discussion happening about how campuses will handle the fees starting in 2005?
Taylor
& Francis (Routledge & Carfax):
A journal package that a lot of people want.
Keep it on the list
Evans:
Keep it on
the list.
Alexander
St. Press – Early Encounters:
SO feels
they should stop creating new databases and finish or improve the ones they
already have. Fix the mistakes, take out
the fraudulent information. Feels
there’s a lack of quality in their databases.
SB says she has requests from faculty to buy this database and that
librarians are always more critical of products than faculty are.
Bibliography
of Native North Americans: Only $15,000
for consortial purchase.
The Nation
Digital Archive:
Some
campuses have already bought it. At UCLA
they used endowment funds. EK brought up
the single-title issue again: Is it
worthwhile to spend so much money on a single title? Group argued that it is much broader than Harpweek and covers a much longer time period, so keep it
on the list.
California
Newspapers (Newsbank): Leave it up to individual campuses.
Biography
and Genealogy Master Index (Gale): Very
useful for all disciplines. Leave this
one up to the Reference Librarians Group.
African
American Biography: Leave it to the
Reference librarians and Ethnic Studies Librarians Network (ESLN).
ACTION: PJ will email EB and the group.
What else
is out there? Historical New York Times
Online,
WOMEN’S
STUDIES
Taylor and
Francis
Men’s
Studies Database (NISC)
Scottish
Women Poets of the Romantic Period: Let
Literature Bibliographers group cover this one?
Women’s
Studies Archives Online
c) JSC wants to know about freely available,
scholarly resources on the Web that CDL should know about for centralized
cataloging and SFX links:
American
Memory
Documenting
the American South
Valley of
the Shadow
Haymarket
(ACTION: SO will get URL)
Making of
Side
question from EB:
Does anyone
have written down a collection development policy for web resources? She finds that at UCLA things are out of hand
with too much junk being linked from subject web pages.
10.
Consortium Web Page (EK)
ACTION: DK will get correct URL for history page and
will send EK URL for new Women’s page that she’s creating.
Last two meetings’ minutes not online.
ACTION: Send to EK
ACTION: Add LGBT links
11.
Discussion of SB’s list of WS web pages resource links
It appears
from the list that SB put together that we’re not doing a good job of
organizing the useful sites we’ve identified for our WS web pages, or does it
just appear so because of the different styles of organizing subject pages and
because some campuses are using portals, not static pages?
12.
Adding LGBT to Our Scope
Issues to
think about: How many more persons would
it involve? Would it raise their
expectations for our discussions? Would
it involve a name change? What if we
have to figure out who’s going to pay for various NISC databases – who would
pay for the Sexual Diversity Database?
University of
Seuss Room, Geisel Library
Present: Joan Ariel, Sherri Barnes, Ellen Broidy, Gary Colemar, Sam Dunlap,
Phoebe Janes, Elliot Kanter,
Diana King, Sheila O’Hare, Beth Sibley, Vicki Williamson,
1. Patty Ayala, Proquest
representative. [most
of the morning session]
a. Products recently
purchased by CDL (supposed to be available by July 1):
The existing PCI (index only)
content has been expanded by full text/image collections 1&2, representing full
runs of about 200 periodicals. About 100 new titles will be digitized each
year. As subscribers UC libraries can now nominate titles to be digitized for
the next batch, collection 3 (which would, if purchased, cost CDL $30,000
before discounts). Any consortial recommendations
should be submitted by July 15. Such
titles must already be in PCI. PCI is
also linking to additional full text via JSTOR and is working on a similar
agreement with Project Muse. Meanwhile,
the CDL has purchased PCI segments 19, 20 and 21, increasing the list of. PCI is also looking for members of a PCI
advisory board.
ACTIONS:
Consortial recommendations of PCI Full Text
titles by July 15; recommendation of a person to be on PCI advisory board.
95 percent of the content has been loaded, representing 2
million scanned page images, 1543-1945? Collection includes 4500 monographs,
275 journals (mostly full runs). Also pamphlets, letters,
diaries. MARC records will be
available. Text creation is ongoing,
from the
Database is at about 60 percent completion; loading not
currently getting top priority among other Proquest
products. Roger Matuz
is project manager, Roger.matuz@il.proquest.com. We should all be using the tailored APS
interface, not the generic Proquest
interface that was used during development.
APS home page has product
information and news of latest content loads under APS News.
Patty also indicated that Proquest
would be sending the campuses CDROM backups for the new databases. [IMPORTANT
NOTE: But later inquiries of Terry Vrable determined this is not true. CDL did not request CDROMs
and does not consider them to meet the terms of the license agreement on
perpetual access. Furthermore,
acceptance of physical CDs would subject the entire purchase to sales tax,
according to the UC auditors.]
b.
Other Proquest Products
A “history portal” to Proquest history resources,
selected articles from 200+ history journals, reference books. Selected web links may be included for a
fee. Will allow a
“master search” or browse of all or any sources. Content currently
British focused (Annual Register and Palmers);
Topical introductions
to major events/issues in history, including multimedia, “Knowledge Notes”
history guides, primary source collections, websites. This is an
undergraduate product.
This is a
merging of the earlier Genealogy & Local History product (genealogies,
local histories, family histories, some city directories; MARC records included
where appropriate) with images of and indexes to the complete
Can buy total collection or by
state. Purchase of all
First paragraph and headline only
are fully indexed; not full content.
It’s not selling well (price is $9500/year for under 25K FTE
institution; $12,500 for larger), and therefore prospects are not good for
investing more money right now in full indexing; instead they are concentrating
on expanding coverage to the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Pricing:
9500 for under 25K FTE; 12,500 for larger FTE.
c.
Anything to Add for JSC Survey Based on Proquest
Presentation?
2. Reports on Continuing Projects
a.
Journals last copies
The latest list of U.S. History
journals (June 2002) was distributed. No
one has volunteered to adopt orphan titles that had been under Stanford’s
protection. The list indicates which
campus owns each title; “Retains” column indicates who has agreed to be
responsible for last copy. Notes
indicate whether title is included in an e-journal package, whether an
endangered title (5 holdings or less) has been “orphaned” by withdrawal of
Stanford from agreements, whether it simply not under agreement
ACTION:
Feedback on the list by Aug 15 about changes, mistakes, changes of
heart. Also please indicate whether your
campus expects a serials cancellation project, and whether there are
expectations of canceling titles that now have digital equvelents.
Phoebe started with a draft list of about 66
titles. She identified 22 with five or fewer holding
libraries (handed out) and then arbitrarily assigned each to a campus. She asked whether this project was worthwhile
for 22 titles; the group said “Yes”.
ACTION: Go back and check with local catalogs, and catch any errors
in draft list by Aug 15
Joan distributed the new list. No
new assignments. Send Joan any
corrections in notes on campus holdings.
She also added notes on e-journal access where she could; wants to go
back and be more systematic in indicating JSTOR and Project Muse connection,
which may be especially important as campuses look at cancellation. Several previously threatened titles have
gone over four campus holding; should those be removed from the list? It was agreed there is no disadvantage to
keeping the notations, as a hedge against future cancellations projects.
ACTION: By August 15 send Joan word of new
titles to be added to the list. Also
send information on titles that have ceased.
What are the implications on our
last copy project in an environment of e-access and CMI-type models of removing
print to remote locations? Are their useful data yet from the CMI project
(answer: it’s too soon). How valid has
been the CMI methodology; will incorrect conclusions be drawn? There may be a campus-by-campus rush to
cancel print for digital packages. Shouldn’t
a last archival paper copy be kept? Is
close enough attention being paid to possible selectivity of titles included in
e-journal packages? Or to difficulty of extracting individual
serials from aggregators like Gender Watch? Such factors should be clearly annotated when
lists of threatened journals are circulated.
It was suggested that the coordinators of the “last copy” lists make a
proposal to the group.
b.
Women’s Studies Microforms (Sherri Barnes):
Sherri distributed a list of “Women’s
Studies Microform Collections” in UC libraries, as well as a list of women’s
studies microform. She will update the
list fomr our recently shared campus reports.
There as discussion of whether a
long-discussed equivalent for
c.
No new presses have been
reported. Joan noted that Odd Girls
Press has had new publications and wanted to know whether she should continue
to purchase archival copies to send to UCSB.
Sherri said that UCSB was up to date on archival acquisitions when she
arrived but that she hasn’t followed up with new publications since then; she
will continue to purchase the archival copies.
Beth has kept in touch with the Bancroft for Northern presses and believes
they are continuing to keep up to date on new publications. There was discussion of whether these
purchases are being tracked in the MELVYL catalog as a “collection”.;
3. Tier 2 Databases:
There were no recommendations for
improvement in the process. Accessible Archives was the last and it did seem
to go smoothly. Two new segments have
been added to African American Newspapers, but it wasn’t clear whether this is
in the purview of
4. How to encourage use of purchased
databases and microforms
At last Winter’s
Consortia meeting, a few campuses reported on steps they had taken on
encouraging use of microform and expensive databases. We were all supposed to share ways we
communicate to faculty and how we promote.
We should continue sharing that info over the next few months, especially
with the VERY expensive databases just purchased by CDL.
Brief discussion followed: Course pages and library instruction is
valuable, but the students reached are relatively few. Vicki reported on efforts at UCSD: email announcement to faculty/grad student
list; articles for library newsletter; adding to database lists, featuring on
websites; demonstrations at library open houses; continuing education sessions
for reference providers. offer demos at
library open house; go on website under “New and Trial”.
It was agreed that it would be
useful to share with one another announcements sent to faculty.
5.
Sherri distributed a detailed
inventory of web resources included in Women’s Studies pages assembled by
members of our consortium. The inventory
tracked which campus included each resource as well as categories used. Phoebe had reviewed
Discussion followed. Page authors should specify their rationale,
selection criteria, organization criteria, purpose of the pages. Difference between
reference pages and bibliographer pages.
Criteria for including free resources. How do we make useful as pathfinders for our
patrons rather than accumulating lists of resources? For example, do they show the top four databases
for doing research in U.S. History? Do they include key CDROM or even print
resources? What about putting electronic
resources in the OPAC? Shouldn’t that be
the database of record for all resources?
Can subject pages/pathfinders serve as an instructional tool between
live reference interview and OPAC search
6. Impact of Transition of
CDL-hosted Databases
We’re not sure. There was some discussion about who is
keeping us informed at each campus about the changes and when to switch. Faculty see mainly as an inconvenience,
especially when functionalities are lost, even temporarily, especially links to
holdings. A key to timing a “switchover”
is when UC E-Links are working effectively; so far its
been very inconsistent among databases.
7. Resource Liaisons
There was discussion of which new
CDL acquisitions were within our scope to recommend resource liaisons. The following databases and volunteers were
identified: APS Online (Elliot Kanter); Gerritsen (Sheila
O’Hare); Women’s Resources International (Diana King); Sexual Diversity Studies
(Gary Colmenar). ACTION:
A list will be sent [by whom?] to Cindy Shelton (as JSC liaison) enumerating both the
current liaisons from the Consortium and the new volunteers. We should also contact our local CDOs (who need to OK).
There was some additional discussion
of how the Liaison structure is working.
When content was pulled from Historical Newspapers, for example, Mary
Engle was notified but not the liaison (Phoebe). Liaisons need to be in the loop. Some have contacted vendors directly to make
sure they are on informational lists.
CDL ought to make it clear to vendors; Sherry Wilhite
is the logical key contact at CDL to make sure.
8. Some final questions
The group
adjourned at