LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for FEDLIB Archives


FEDLIB Archives

FEDLIB Archives


FEDLIB@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FEDLIB Home

FEDLIB Home

FEDLIB  June 1997

FEDLIB June 1997

Subject:

May Type-of-Library Minutes (fwd)

From:

Marcia D Talley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FEDLIB: Federal Librarians Discussion List

Date:

Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:16:06 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (310 lines)

From=20your 1997-98 OCLC Users' Council Delegates:
   Bernard Strong Marcia Talley
   [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
   ph: 202-287-9463 ph: 410-293-6905

=09
NOTES OF THE OCLC USERS COUNCIL
SMALL GROUPS BY
TYPE-OF-LIBRARY
JANUARY 28, 1997

GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL LIBRARIES

Mary Coyle-Kidwell, Leader
Benard Strong, Recorder

Other Participants:
Lee Hadden
John Shaloiko
Kathleen Menanteaux
Sharon J. Rogers
Wayne Kelly
Linda Gabel (OCLC)
Mary Ann Nash (OCLC PACIFIC DIRECTOR)

Special and government libraries traditionally have unique resources and ca=
n
cooperate with other libraries best through resource sharing. Basically
users want immediate delivery of information upon discovery and are willing
to pay for this information. Partnerships can be sought in the areas of
Cataloging, Resource Sharing and digitizing.

OCLC can contribute by establishing partnerships with sources that can
assist in digitizing unique materials, local interest materials or
collections of value.

**Establish partnerships with digitizing vendors (as ProTech is for
cataloging)

**Establish partnerships with associations and societies and other
specialized organizations/publishers for their database information

**Consider dual-tiered pricing or other alternatives to encourage resource
sharing; Some users are ILL borrowers only.

**LDR information should be at the same detail level as holdings records on
local systems.

WHAT CAN OCLC DO TO STRENGTHEN COMPONENTS OF GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL LIBRARY
SERVICES:

Investigate custom holdings expansion to automate ILL relationships

Assist in digitizing locally *valuable* print or object materials

Provide training by OCLC Institute hosting a digitizing symposium and/or
VTC

Continue to develop and provide real-time custom electronic management
reports


LARGE RESEARCH LIBRARIES

Agnes Grady, Leader
Larry Alford, Recorder

Question 1: Types of partnerships OCLC should focus on to strengthen
services

General Comments
 - partnerships that help/don*t hurt
 - choose partners carefully so they can help us
 - "know who you are in bed with"
 - use OCLC to move vendors in direction libraries need =FB that is in a
pro-library direction
 - for full text look for vendors who will archive or allow OCLC to archive
 - know who will take responsibility for archiving
 - look for vendors who understand the value of archiving
 - need seamless connection between current issues and archives

Electronic Journal Comments
 - In response to the concern about access to archives or backfiles, Liz
Bishoff
noted that continued access to archives is required by OCLC contracts with
electronic journal publishers. There followed a brief discussion of OCLC
ECO
policies with regard to archiving, maintaining archives, access to archives=
,
etc.
 - None of ECO contracts are exclusive.
 - Access by publisher is not working and does not make sense to users.
 - OCLC needs to un-bundle and not offer large packages.

Partnership Comments
 - Need vendor relationship that makes life simpler for libraries and libra=
ry
users, not more complex.
 - Another type of partnership is with Associations to make
information/objects available (e.g. museum collections)
 - partnerships with libraries who are digitizing or want to begin projects
 - figure out ways to digitize cheaper (scanning/SGML)
 - form partnerships with University Presses
 - University Press bibliographies could be mounted by OCLC
 - Other kinds of University Press materials (books that are out of print)
could be mounted.
 - Work with University Presses to credential information in electronic for=
m.
 - Higher education has place to credential (University Presses) and way to
distribute (OCLC) electronic information. (Members of AAUP who are
publishing journals could become the ones who credential the publication of
academic research in electronic form)
 - OCLC and Higher Education as information producers form a natural
partnership
 - GIS community should be partners with OCLC/Libraries
 - There has been a recent trend for libraries to let OCLC do it. We should
remember that World Cat was built as a library/OCLC partnership. We need t=
o

return to that partnership.
 - OCLC should provide a *plug and play* project as they did with catalog
records to create a digital library
 - Need for product for libraries to use/create/transmit digital records.

Question 2: Components to be strengthened by OCLC partnerships

Comments
 - more aggregation needed/more aggressive aggregation needed
 - huge time/energy savings if OCLC had contract with Encyclopedia Britanni=
ca
even if no financial savings
 - use new Institute to help educate library deans, Telecommunication staff=
,
administrators, etc. in Universities on the emerging electronic information
issues.
 - OCLC needs to continue to provide efficiency of scale
 - some discussion over what was meant by simpler (Point 2 below)
  1. not lowest common denominator
  2. no simple search engines
  3. simpler business plans


Additional Comments and Questions
 - How would libraries be represented in Internet II?
 - How should they be represented?
 - What is OCLC*s role in creating Internet II? (none to date)
 - Don*t lose discussion about Presses. It is a potentially critical
partnership.

Points to Report to Users Council
1) OCLC should move vendors in a pro-library direction.
2) OCLC should choose vendors who will make life simpler (instead of more
    complex) for libraries and their users (with their business plans).
3) more aggressive aggregation by OCLC
4) Create Institute for University Leaders
5) Form partnerships with Non-commercial information providers including
    University Presses and Museums and work to make unique resources in
    public and other libraries available.


MEDIUM ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

Edward Meachen, Leader
Douglas Lehman, Recorder

The group was called to order by Group Leader, Ed Meachen to discuss the
questions from the Executive committee as indicated in the handouts.

Question #1: What types of partnerships with information producers should
OCLC focus on to strengthen your library*s services to users? Why?

Question #2: What components of your library*s services could be
significantly strengthened by OCLC*s partnerships with information
producers? How?

The group came up with several aspects of these questions, which tended to
flow together rather than separately. Discussion began with the idea that
OCLC should take a look at partnering with the producers of non-traditional
publications, such as: patents and trademarks, codes and standards,
audio-visual material, graphical, archival, commercial slide collections,
ICPSR, Chadwyck-Healey, and maps, with records which have a hot link to the
map image. It was felt that these were producers which have not been
heavily involved in the process to this point. It was also noted that
libraries could be producers and suppliers of material like: newscasts,
archives, non-copyright materials, slides/images, and CAD-CAM programs.

Discussion then shifted to what value OCLC could add to these associations.
 It was felt that OCLC could serve in the following ways: providing
standard ways of describing collections and development of finding aids,
providing organization and interpretation, setting holdings in ECO, and by
providing an accounting capability similar to the Inter-Library Loan Fee
Management. There was some discussion about different ways to recoup costs
for providing access to special collections.

Following on the heels of this discussion the group talked about government
information and how OCLC could be used as a vehicle and a tool for local
access. We also talked about how OCLC records could be enriched by includin=
g
tables of contents, summaries and reviews. It was felt that OCLC may becom=
e
a source for the dissemination of ERIC and NTIS documents online.

Next we moved on to discussion about improving delivery models of
information. It was felt that perhaps we have been too bland in our
approach and we need to develop more eye-catching and exciting delivery
models to attract users. It was also noted that perhaps OCLC could
negotiate with some of the large journal vendors, on behalf of libraries, i=
n
an effort to achieve a better discount than is currently possible. It was
mentioned that this value-added process may, however, increase the cost ove=
r
what we currently receive. Local automation vendors were mentioned as they
need to be able to interface their local system with the OCLC ILL Subsystem=
=2E
 This way direct ILL by patrons can be more effective and efficient. There
was also discussion about OCLC partnering with the full-text providers,
although there seems to be movement in that direction. It was felt that
OCLC is the only entity with the size and clout to work with the database
vendors. Finally, it was mentioned that perhaps OCLC should look into
partnering with RLG.

Regarding the second question, *What components of your library services
could be significantly strengthened by OCLC*s partnership with information
producers? How?* the group felt the following areas would be strengthened=
:
 courseware development software and electronic reserves. It was noted tha=
t
if an institution provides the courseware in the system then they should ge=
t
credits on their invoice.

In summary, the group presented these three ideas for the whole Users
Council:

1. It is felt that libraries would be enriched by a machine-readable
journal collection similar to Books for College Libraries. This would not
necessarily be the same titles from Elsevier that are used by large researc=
h
libraries, but rather titles for the undergraduate and master*s degree
granting institutions. There would be issues of access and two parallel
tracks--one for undergraduate and one more research-oriented. It also was
noted that there should be an unbundling of the titles, allowing libraries
to buy only an article from a title, if needed, but not the whole title.

2. A monograph project needs to be developed and started. This would mak=
e
use of OCLC*s developments in the electronic archiving area.

3. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the use of non-traditional
information sources.


SMALL ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

Elaine Cline, Leader
Jennifer Morris, Recorder

A. What types of partnerships?
     1. Recon for older govt. docs--i.e., pre 1976. These items have no
item #*s, but could use SUDOC# or Bureau
     2. Provide CDT for all gov*t docs with imbedded URL*s and maintain
them (PURL*s). Like major microforms, subscription basis.
     3. Provide serials bib records for other electronic journals services
(EBSCO, Project MUSE, UMI ProQuest Direct, JSTOR, etc.) and update
     4. With newspapers like the Philadelphia Inquirer for full text (not
network-able; not on web)
     5. *Bib-not* service for reporting on merged and deleted bib
records--esp. for serials
     6. AMIGOS collection analysis product on CD-ROM--could OCLC provide i=
t
on a more regular and interactive basis? Gary Houk says a similar function
was done for FGCU. Maybe part of new collection analysis tool.
     7. As libraries start digitizing, need a storage mechanism for
archiving. Pricing should be set up so that libraries could pay a one-time=
,
up-front fee (large) which is easier for library budgeting than ongoing
annual payments--*Electronic Perpetual Care.* May offset some costs by
royalty payments by users. Archive file available on FirstSearch.
     8. GPO partnership for archiving, preservation
     9. Individual journal publisher partnerships for archiving
     10. OCLC alert on special collections--OCLC and individual
institutions

B. What components could be strengthened?
     1. OCLC*s goal to integrate and make seamless access available is a
tremendous value-added service.
     2. The holdings record is unique value-added data.
     3. Work with publishers to get more consistent and stable holdings.
 They need to see the big picture. Work with university presses and some
professional associations.
     4. OCLC partner with push technologies--even if it*s Microsoft!
     5. Partnering with producers of administrative software to track
number of searches per patron, number of ILL*s per patron. Need usage
statistics in a standardized form like Excel.
     6. Help libraries provide information to their clientele.
     7. Partner with genealogical sources (Mormon Church?)
     8. Broadcast searches through many databases
     9. Partnerships with local systems vendors

C. Other Services
     1. Library staff need entirely new visions of the future--the OCLC
Institute could offer regional workshops. Or, should the networks do this?
 (Much discussion on this; no resolution)

D. Issues Unique to Small Academic Libraries
     1. Pricing of OCLC products for small libraries is almost always
higher than competitors* prices
     2. Small libraries may need more plug & play products--don*t have
staff or campus resources to maintain some of these products

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager