Pretty Big Trends, “Pretty Good” Practice, and New Tools Tim Jewell UW Libraries Collection Management Services [email protected] UCLA Libraries.

Pretty Big Trends,“Pretty Good” Practice,

and New Tools

Tim JewellUW Libraries Collection Management Services

[email protected]

UCLA Libraries Tech TalkFeb. 7, 2002

Related 2001 DLF Reports(available on DLF Web Site)

Goal: “ARL SPEC Kit Plus”: identify and propagate best practices

Strategies for Building Digitized Collections (Abby Smith)

Building Sustainable Collections of Free Third-Party Web Resources (Lou Pitschmann)

Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources (Tim Jewell)

Talk Overview

I. Broad Context

II. Idealized Practice Model Digression 1

III. Collaborating on Standards Digression 2

IV. Next Steps

I. Broad E-resource Context Demand for “24x7” access high “Google-ization” E-resource budget shares continue to grow

(mostly digital environment in 5 years?) Most larger libraries rely on multiple providers and

consortia E-resources are complex to fund and acquire Complexity makes management hard Current integrated online systems mainly built for

print collections?

II. Idealized Model of Effective Selection and Presentation Practices

A. Selection Policies and Strategic Plans

Well-developed selection guidelines and policies

 Articulated goals and strategic

approach to selecting or developing e-resources

B. Institutional Finance and Organization

Broad-based oversight and coordination committee structures

E-resource coordinators

Distributed “resource stewardship”

C. Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation and Purchase

Systematic, understandable workflows; forms to expedite handling

  Easy to determine order status   Information about library readily available to

vendors.   Clear system for conducting trials

D. Licensing Issues and Practices

Process for smooth handling of licenses

Staff and users informed of licensing terms

E. Web Presentation Strategies

Aggregator database periodical holdings available, integrated into catalog and resource lists

A & I database citations linked to e-journal and aggregator holdings

  User-oriented presentation of resources and

“personalization” services

Digression 1: Web presentation examplesUW Libraries GatewayYale Libraries Online Journal ListUW Healthlinks Penn GatewayUW Engineering page prototypeUWILLSFX

F. User Support

General support information readily available to users

Comprehensible problem escalation/ triage paths for staff

Integration of instructional information

(New) Digital/interactive reference

G. Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information

Planned/cyclic reviews prior to renewal

Systematic reporting of usage to staff

(New) Usability testing

H. Preservation and Archiving

Efforts to establish preservation techniques and standards

Realistic assessment of E-resource preservation/archiving risks

I. Toward Integrated Systems for Managing Electronic Resources

Develop plans for e-resource support system

(New) Participate in developing standards for new e-resource support systems

III. Collaborating to Develop Standards for E-resource Management Systems

E-resource Management Systems and Initiatives 1: Available Now

Penn State (ERLIC) MIT (VERA) Michigan Notre Dame Texas (License Tracker) Virginia Yale

E-resource Management Systems and Initiatives 2: Under Development

California Digital Library Cornell (?) Johns Hopkins (HERMES) Stanford UCLA

“Communication History”ALCTS Big Heads (Midwinter and

Annual 2001) “Web Hub”ListserveDLF Spring Forum, 2001Metadata Group Meeting, Midwinter

2002

Digression 2: E-resource Management Demos

Yale (again)MIT (VERA)Penn State (ERLIC)Texas (License Tracker)Johns Hopkins (HERMES)

“Compare and Contrast”Spreadsheet Analysis Similarities

Platforms Functions Elements

Differences Platforms Functions Elements

Advantages of Standards

Jump start local development (prevent “reinventing the wheel”)

Data sharing “OCLC cataloging model” Serials vendors Publishers

Future portabilityFocus vendor attention

Possible Drawbacks of Standards

Too early? (needs may change) Inhibit innovation? IOLS vendors might sacrifice

competitive advantagesMay accelerate negative licensing

practices Fair Use-hostile license models UCITA

Interested Parties and Potential Partners

Developers of local systems Digital Library Federation ALA/ALCTS groups (“Big Heads”; Networked

Resources Metadata Committee, etc.) IOLS vendors (III, ExLibris, etc.) “Open Source” community NASIG, Serials vendors and publishers Standards groups (NISO, TeSLA)

General StrategyGoal: develop, register XML schemaSteps

Develop “functional specs.” statement over next month

Divide data elements into two “phases” Identify and define phase 1 data elements

over next 2-3 months Publish, discuss, refine Move on to phase 2 data elements

Phase 1 Elements(relatively) easy stuff

Set up 3 groups of volunteers to identify and define data elements and descriptions for:

Identification/description “parent and child” structure and relationships

Licensing details “what can you do” with this stuff?

Access and Support “who you gonna call?”

Phase 2 Elementstougher/more institution- specific stuff

Process Status “who’s got the ball?”

Financial Management “who pays what?”

Usage Information “what do we know about use?”

Pragmatic Problems and Issues IOLS vendors may provide usable “modules”

in time, but libraries feel urgent need to develop short-term fixes

Previous/ongoing investments in systems Probably don’t want to make major changes

to longstanding record-keeping practices Multiple data streams need to be brought

together

Relevant Dublin Core Elements?

Subject Description Publisher Date(s) Type

Format Relation Coverage Rights

IV. Next StepsForm “Functional Spec.” groupCall for more volunteers for phase 1Communicate with potential partnersPlan for conference events

DLF ALA Annual NASIG Etc.