STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of February 19, 2015 Meeting

Present:
K. Mulcahy (co-chair), A. Watkins (co-chair), E. Sosnowska, J. Sloan, E.Gorder (recorder), T. Izbicki, M. Just, R. Marker, J. Sauceda, M.B.Weber, L. Palumbo, G. Smulewitz, J. Pilch, J. Still, V. Pelote, G. Agnew.
Excused:
Barry Lipinski

1. Approval of Agenda-All

The agenda was approved.

2. Approval of the Minutes from January 15, 2015--All

The minutes were revised by T. Izbicki re: report on cabinet meeting to clarify that there was no replacement for Phonothon funds and RUL is working with Beth Mardutho on a possible hidden collections grant for Middle Eastern materials.

The minutes were otherwise approved with these revisions.

3. Chair's Report-K. Mulcahy

Our free balance on non-state funds for monographs is 59.8% as of February 18. This is not good, there is no reason to think there is a backlog, with the exception perhaps of media. This belies our request for funds if it looks like we are not spending. Our ordering season ends in 5-6 weeks so we must push our orders in as quickly as possible. This large a free balance this late in the fiscal year is not good. Monograph funds need to be spent and selectors are urged to spend out their allocations. PLEASE SPEND, SPEND NOW!

4. AUL Report-T. Izbicki

Revised Collection Analysis Group charge went to cabinet.

We are working on asking budget for next fiscal year to be presented in March; A. DiPaolo is pulling together data on what we did with the budget cuts to have at the ready for interested parties; [there were some challenges handling transition in recordkeeping system?]; DiPaolo will be invited to present at the Collections Analysis Group.

Reminder to add urgently needed resources to "desiderata" list.

SPEND MONOGRAPH MONEY NOW! We have a small amount of Phonothon funds but will take back H-funds if not they are not spent.

The Hathi Trust Task Force is active and will submit a report to LRC. Next month it will report on the impact of Hathi on our services, including as one example, our preservation program. One of the benefits from the visit from Hathi Trust was the opportunity to learn more about our ability to use copyrighted resources under certain circumstances (e.g. for visually impaired users).

CIC opted in for Early American Newspapers, allowing RUL to add Module 8. We are still missing the first module which will be added when funding is available.

JSTOR books and PALCI-experiment to see how they're playing with us now. (possibly go to Cabinet for one time money.)

Regarding borrowing we need to continue to study interlibrary loan costs and finish data analysis (from DTS data) as it may be more prudent to purchase a subscription outright rather than rely on ILL. Question generated from Collection Analysis Group that an analysis of the use of different resources by the discipline is necessary. This study will come back to LRC in the future.

5. AUL Report-G. Agnew

Moving forward on the Digital Humanities Lab which will utilize the converted SCC seminar rooms.

The digital data application is working well managing metadata and I. Beard is ingesting research data. Research data comes in all formats and as a result we need to ingest by hand, but for the future we are looking into packaging software for faculty to package their own data to submit to RUCore.

Regarding Big Data-RUL does not want to be the repository, ORED and their cyber-infrastructure will STORE the data, RUL will create metadata and advise on metadata and other information management concerns (which is the realm of our information expertise).

Research Data Implementation Task Force report was endorsed by Cabinet but no implementation so far-the work we are doing now is for 6 months down the road. We need to get the structure set up first; therefore we are currently using test data and not taking in real data. Question arose about whether this report was accepted by cabinet as there are legal issues that still need to be addressed. J. Pilch explained that some of the information in the report will need revision. Work needs to be done to address certain legal aspects. A meeting will be convened on this in the near future. The report won't be shared widely until issues are worked out-the result is that we are going forward but we will need to ensure that our design can accommodate, and be flexible enough to handle legal issues. The final word on how legal issues are resolved hasn't been discussed-however it is recognized that the design must support multiple scenarios regarding the handling of legal issues and we want to move forward with this important consideration. A crucial point is that ORED is partnering with us and so far ORED is not seeing legal issues. An important aspect of this initiative is layers: we will handle small data, ORED will handle bigger data and storage. Additionally, with sensitive material RUL has the expertise. We'll only be the discovery layer for the big data, which is essentially the unifying layer of the entire infrastructure. We're helping ORED with data issues, Dept. of Computer Science is very involved as well. End result-Cabinet has endorsed, and we are just starting to work out the details. It was agreed that certain aspects of the report will be tweaked with respect to the legal issues.

Working on the Diversity and Inclusivity portal to recognize the research of faculty and students on diversity and inclusion with a focus on what is already in RUCore.

IJS is getting a major refresh and redesign of its website.

6. CTS Report-M.B. Weber

Submit orders!

Reminder of the changes in reporting-Jane Otto will no longer be ordering and cataloging media; these responsibilities will be transferred to Melissa DeFino who will now be supervising two staff members for media.

Clarification and reminder that CTS is an integrated department wherein multiple functions overlap collaboratively-acquisitions and cataloging were combined back in 2008 and there is no separate cataloging department anymore.

G. Agnew adds that there are many cross-cutting work teams drawn from multiple units under the guiding principle of continuity of management and goal-oriented philosophies and less upon rigidly delineated boundaries. Thus "technical services" (in the lower case) focuses on functions.

7. DTS Report-G. Smulewitz

Begun an initiative to bring in and meet vendors we've worked with in the past (and with whom we may have a long history of association) but have never met face to face. For instance a recent meeting with a music vendor offered an opportunity to discuss the best ways to acquire resources we've been getting (perhaps at a discount) and it was a very enlightening experience to get different opinions and fresh perspectives. From this activity, we've learned that the vendor is very willing to work with us-and it is a great example of how acquisitions and DTS can mutually understand the problems and work out a solution.

DTS is working with A. DiPaolo to put together spreadsheets based on departments, disciplines, and usage to view the budget scenario for databases and subscriptions based on cuts, etc. and to assess the real impact of cuts. DTS is also working with A. DiPaolo on a cash flow analysis to determine spending patterns throughout the year.

Working with CIC central orders and workflow is proving to be complicated, in part because CIC agreements sometimes overlap with previous deals RUL has worked out with vendors, wither through other consortia or as a single institution. We are requesting clarification from CIC.

Participating in "GoKb" project is a master database/ knowledge base which offers a way to make sure that standards are applied to deal with the holdings of different packages, to correct metadata of public packages or individual subscriptions. It will be populated automatically with OLE. At its core, GOKb is a knowledge base that will describe electronic journals and books, publisher packages, and platforms and will track changes over time, including transitions in publishers and bibliographic changes. This project is especially beneficial because it addresses standards for ERMs-which exist but are not enforced. Those standards are not well written to deal with technical issues or linked data.

8. Data for collection analysis-G. Agnew and T. Izbicki

How do we best answer the question of usage? By discipline? Science and Technology usage is immediate, humanities more delayed. We need to gather, analyze and interpret circulation data over time. Evidence from local micro-studies suggests that humanities books continue to circulate for many years. Use is a complicated issue that is fueled by the recent trend of moving books offsite (to downright de-accessioning) as decision-makers contend that library space is best converted from "object" storage to activity spaces; however, there has been pushback from voices in the humanities who argue that the "artifact "itself, as well as the intellectual content remains relevant for scholarly inquiry and pedagogic purposes.

Therefore the Libraries need to initiate an ethnographic study on circulation and/or use to help us get a clear picture of monograph usage. The study would include extracting macro-level anonymized data from the circulation system and also developing a simple questionnaire (5-10 items) that would draw a picture of the habits and information seeking behavior of the [circulating] public. Data gathered could include age range, experience level, department, etc. Lastly, there could be focus groups or individual interviews to complete the data gathering component. Some circulation statistics can come from Director's Station. It would also be important to look at patterns of renewal. Special Collections should be a separate ethnographic study, but the data would be crucial to the larger initiative (and there are ways of tracking in-house use of non-circulating materials). A Task Force has been created which will incorporate a range of studies, separate surveys for different types of collections, i.e. Media or Spec. Coll. The initiative will initially look at analog material use (not e-books).

It is important to recall that our most heavily used database is the library catalog, and that book use remains quite significant. While some libraries are purging collections to install more computers (often at the directive of library directors and University administrations), some studies show that blending study space with stack space increases use of materials. The Task Force will look to develop a template that can be used throughout RUL, including smaller, specialized collections like IJS, SC/UA, RBHS, etc.

9. Revised Charge for Media Team

Building media collections requires consideration of physical media and streaming media. The charge is designed to address those issues on how we acquire and access media-- in addition to technical concerns such as format obsolescence-- to inform decisions on which material we should retain, transfer to another media, or discard (for instance, for high volume of requests for items, we reformat to DVD). R. Marker comments that it is useful to post the "process" as well, i.e. if the practice is to purchase the DVD and if we can't purchase, then it is reformatted.

REVISE #1 to include a statement that includes format changes and rights issues: ". . . what media formats to acquire given format changes, rights issues, playback quality. . ." With this amendment, LRC endorses the Media Team Charge. The main purpose of the charge is to move the focus from the tech side to the public services side. The team can report to USC but should consult with LRC when collections issues come up (streamline).

We need to come up with a preservation policy that goes beyond the mold policy.

There will be a new media librarian as Jane will be retiring in a few months.

10. Announcements-All

M.B. Weber- will be participating in a first time author's mentoring group/initiative in ARCL [?].

V. Pelote- additional comment (pertaining to item #9 and charge for Media Team) that media transfer and preservation is expensive. In response, G. Agnew suggests that we need to compile all of our information, do our homework, and consider writing a grant for media preservation or determine that we can use our budget.

11. Agenda for March 19, 2015 meeting.

DiPaolo will meet with collections group and LRC.

Review of VuFind (USC will submit its report this month). We are on target with VuFind and test searching reveals it is a clear improvement as results for media come up much more in VuFind.

Collections analysis team charge goes to Cabinet as informational.



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/lrc/minutes/lrc_15_02_19.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2017, Rutgers University Libraries