We discussed the email from RUCS indicating they will no longer support WSFTP for file transfer. They have moved to the more secure SSH client. I checked with Chris Sterback and confirmed that this does not effect RUL use of WSFTP. Our method of using this platform is secure through assigned passwords to the web server. Should a decision be made to move to a different FTP platform, systems assured me significant time would be allowed for training, planning, etc.
Dean encountered some difficulty in printing PDF files created from converted powerpoint files. Images were printing with no text. The “print as image” button indicated under “advanced” printing options solved this issue. A stamp on the front page indicating “Print as Image” was added, and I will look to distribute this stamp to the group.
In light of the changes in Electronic Reserves, both upcoming and in the past few years, I have asked for a meeting of the Electronic Reseves Committee, which has not met in some three years; since the decentrilization of reserve scanning from Image Services. This group is comprised of staff from NBL, Dana, Robeson, systems and image services. As dicussed in our meeting today, here are the four major subjects I would like addressed:
The date for this meeting has not yet been set. I urge members of the NBL Reserve FG to consider any issues with the service that need to be discussed and to forward those concerns to me.
On 3/11 I attended an Access Services Symposium at NYU. One of the discussion groups focused on Electronic Reserves and Electronically delivered documents. The majority of group discussion centered on Reserves, and the majority of that discussion was occupied by copyright. I shared with the group the highlights of the conversation. In a general sense, the group was split about evenly between institutions that utilize the reserve module of their OPAC to present an integrated print/electronic reserve list, and others that use an external software package like docutek. Those, like us, who integrate the presentation of reserves in our online module cited the advantage of "one stop shopping" for reserve material and the need to support fewer software packages.
On the topic of copyright, institutions did vary as to their operational interpretations of "fair use" guidlines. Several spent as much as $30-$60K per semester on obtaining copyright permissions for temporary use of material. Others required faculty members to obtain and present permission for each article used. A good number more closely resembled our operations with a fairly liberal interpretation of fair use coupled to rigid guidlines of returning material at the end of the semester as well as purging copies and cataloging records from our database. Essentially all institutions cited ongoing review of copyright interpretations, working with libraries adminstration and university council.
Of interest was the functionality built into some library's process, such as MIT with their "stellar" software, of faculty members directly inputing scanned documents into a file created for them. This was cited as a time saving measure with direct faculty access to setting up files. That said, it removes a certain level of oversight in terms of control of copyright, file size, image quality, etc. Also, most institutions reported facing challenged with linking to external sources, citing concerns of document availability, supported software and copyright. So if much of this sounds familiar it indicates we as an institution are much in step with the challenges facing E-Reserve at other libraries. I was pleased to see many of our solutions continue to be innovative and successful.
There will be a distribution of minutes from this conference, when I receive them, I will forward the reserve discussion to the group.
We discussed several ongoing projects. The acquisitions database is nearing completion. Forms and queries are in place. Issues of MS Access version compatabilty were noted and are being addressed.
Reserve items with holds are being processed via a weekly report by Ramon. The process is going well, aside from a few questionable items here and there that Ramon is checking with individual units to answer. It is very likely the process will help fine tune our use of holds for the transit of reserve materials and lead to more accurate processing.
Dean distributed a set of directions for viewing non-shadowed items. I will add the documentation to our page and forward the link. Please use the item search and display function to bring up non-shadowed reserve items, and then use modify title to change the shadow status.
As supply order time is fast approaching, we discussed developing, as part of our documentation, a set of standard supplies. This could be useful when one unit runs out, and borrows from other units. Also for standardizied appearance sake. I noted in conversation a number of units used different tape, etc. I will forward to the group a set of recommended supplies. Please review with your comments and I will put together a finalized list for next meeting. Rita mentioned the CS recommendation of placing a piece of scotch tape beneath the reserve tape in order to protect the spine of the book.
The issue was raised of getting a class put together from TEC focusing on PDF file creation, management, and conversion from other file formats. I will explore the possibility of requesting a customized class, or finding internal (NBL) staff to conduct such a class.
The next meeting will be held Wednesday, April 21st at 3:00PM. We have decided, for the next two months, to rotate the meeting location as we have been meeting at LSM for some time. In April we will meet at the Kilmer library, and in May at SMLR.