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
NOTES OF THE OCLC USERS COUNCIL
SMALL GROUPS BY
JANUARY 28, 1997
GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL LIBRARIES
Mary Coyle-Kidwell, Leader
Benard Strong, Recorder
Sharon J. Rogers
Linda Gabel (OCLC)
Mary Ann Nash (OCLC PACIFIC DIRECTOR)
Special and government libraries traditionally have unique resources and ca=
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
**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
WHAT CAN OCLC DO TO STRENGTHEN COMPONENTS OF GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL LIBRARY
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
Continue to develop and provide real-time custom electronic management
LARGE RESEARCH LIBRARIES
Agnes Grady, Leader
Larry Alford, Recorder
Question 1: Types of partnerships OCLC should focus on to strengthen
- 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
- 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
noted that continued access to archives is required by OCLC contracts with
electronic journal publishers. There followed a brief discussion of OCLC
policies with regard to archiving, maintaining archives, access to archives=
- 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.
- Need vendor relationship that makes life simpler for libraries and libra=
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=
- 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
- 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=
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
- more aggregation needed/more aggressive aggregation needed
- huge time/energy savings if OCLC had contract with Encyclopedia Britanni=
even if no financial savings
- use new Institute to help educate library deans, Telecommunication staff=
administrators, etc. in Universities on the emerging electronic information
- 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
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
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=
tables of contents, summaries and reviews. It was felt that OCLC may becom=
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=
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=
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=
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=
if an institution provides the courseware in the system then they should ge=
credits on their invoice.
In summary, the group presented these three ideas for the whole Users
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=
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=
use of OCLC*s developments in the electronic archiving area.
3. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the use of non-traditional
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=
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
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
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