Minutes of June 3, 2004 Meeting

G. Agnew, E. Calhoun, J. Neissen, A. Ka-Neng, R. Marker. M. Page. R. Sewell, G. Smulewitz (recorder), M. Weber.
R. Bogan, J. Boyle, M. Joseph. A. Montanaro

1. AUL's Report - G. Agnew

MIC (Moving Image Collections)

MIC, a union catalog of moving images and directory of organizations collecting moving images, has introduced the Science Goes to the Movies portal, which offers access specifically to science-related moving images, as well as information on creating and using moving images in the classroom. The searches can be conducted against the union catalog and limited to those titles that are science related. Some moving image titles represent moving images available in analog form only, while others have links to streaming video versions. Medical schools, in particular, have embraced moving images as a way to provide distance continuous education experiences and to support homeland security initiatives. Medical school libraries have been early and enthusiastic supporters of MIC. The MIC Science Educators Advisory Board will be meeting at TAS on Friday to review MIC and provide guidance from an educator s perspective.


SCILS is performing a usability assessment for the MIC. They are asking participants to rate the components for usability and responsiveness. It may be possible to use the same survey for the New Jersey Digital Highway. L. Langscheid can evaluate the possibilities.


There are changes in RLIN offerings a new client debut which mimics OCLC in the ability to do batch work. There will be a new pricing structure offered soon

RUL spending for RLIN usage has not dropped and OCLC expenditures have increased. There is heavy RLIN usage for ILL and for CJK. RLIN expenses should be reduced, therefore RUL will need to develop a good usage strategy for RLIN and OCLC, taking into consideration what we test, what we do in-house and what we outsource.


On Friday, 5/28/04, SIRSI staff came to RUL to offer presentations on many products. Presentations were open to all faculty and staff and were followed by a meeting of the LIS committee members, the AULs and the SIRSI staff. One product presented, Director s Station, was considered to be an extremely useful tool for RUL. It is a management tool from which various reports can be retrieved to measure library health, growth and performance. The statistics that are logged can potentially be fed into an analysis application such as SPSS and statistical comparisons can be evaluated. TSC should strongly recommend purchasing Director s Station. If Director s Station is purchased, ILink, a new web interface for the online catalog will be available free of charge.

TSC Goals of 2003-2004-

1. Build on the workflow improvements of the past year to make ordering and receiving more efficient and effective-

-Acquisitions has selected a new approval plan vendor, Yankee Book Peddlar- who will bring new technologies to the order process to make the process more efficient pre-order cataloging along with CATME software have reduced the order turn around time from 5 weeks to about 2 weeks. Also, Acquisitions is working with Harrassowitz for EDI ordering.

The receiving process will be looked at for efficiencies in the coming year.

2. Migrate government documents catalog records purchase from a testbed to a sustainable and ongoing workflow-

-MARCIVE is no longer a testbed for the loading of Federal Depository records. It is a sustainable workflow, although analysis of workflow will be ongoing.

3. Develop and implement a Fedora-based digital repository architecture-

-RUL is versioning its implementation of Fedora, incorporating the libraies data-intensive architecture, in order to document functionality and robustness. Currently, RUL is in version .25, which has included basic end-to-end testing of all functionality but does not incorporate the libraries sophisticated data architecture. DAWG and Data Architecture are working towards .5, which will incorporate the data architecture and expanded/revised workflow management system, and by September, expect to have 1.0, which will be extensively beta tested with collections that represent different scenarios of use, including both in-house and external use by a partner in NJDH (Seabrook Cultural Center).

4. Standardize and implement a data model and data architecture for the RU repository.

-Spreadsheets are being created for all different types of metadata. Technical metadata standards have been established. The database reflecting the different METS metadata components is currently under development. METS (Metadata Encoding and Transport Schema) combines multiple metadata files about a digital object the descriptive metadata that enables a user to find and access the object, the technical metadata that describes the digital creation of the object, the source metadata that describes the first generation of information provided by the object and administrative metadata, that describes the ownership and provenance of the object.

5. Complete the Library Information Protection and Security Plan

-This has been completed.

6. Review the Systems scheduling process and make any changes required to enable strategic revisions in a timely and responsive manner

-The use of Director's Station will free staff to do other things besides reports preparation.

7. Identify core technical services activities across all campuses and libraries. Prioritize activities, evaluate responsibilities, and develop minimal standards for all core technical services activities.

-This was postponed until Dana was a fully functional partner in the analysis. L. Turzynski has worked with the staff to bring all activities up to date. They are now ready to participate.

8. Improve access to information about electronic journals and packages

-Open URL (LinkSource) is up and running. Open URL strings variable data on to a URL in order to link to other sources. Some problems in linking have been reported but they are not a LinkSource problem. The overall problem is that an Open URL source relies on technological development of the resources it attempts to link to. Therefore the results will vary depending on those resources.

EBSCO A-Z, a locator tool for e-resources, was also implemented.

Group Discussion-
A discussion was held to determine goals for the coming year.

Camden- complete inventory and have drop shipping of shelf ready material.

Newark Jazz Institute retrospective conversion for material that was cataloged but never made it to IRIS. The Jazz Institute is now ordering books and CDs through SIRSI processes are becoming mainstream.

New Brunswick R. Marker reported that Dana can now be full participants in identifying core technical services activities and we should continue with that goal. The Holdings Working Group is already working on standards for many functions that it is logical to add something to the groups charge that includes analyzing core technical services. The objectives would be to:

a. Identify what functions are being performed and where
b. What are core technical services
c. What are the benchmarks for these services
d. What are the tradeoffs and costs for where and how things are carried out. Where do the efficiencies exist.

HWG would consult with the Inventory Stacks Automation Committee to perform inventory strategic sampling would be conducted and include condition using a scaled ranking method.

Dana will be developing a book repair facility. They will be visiting New Brunswick for training on preservation practices. The concentration will be on the following:

a. condition assessment
b. rebinding
c. page repairs
d. tip ins

Discussion regarding the RU Repository

It isn't clear to everyone what the repository is, how its technical infrastructure (based on Fedora and METS) works, nor what material will be held in the repository. It is important to begin exploring its potential for the libraries and for Rutgers University generally. G. Agnew expressed concern that the repository needs to be broadly understood within the libraries, since it is less than a year until it is ready for active use. It was suggested that members of Technical Services Council become ambassadors of the RU repository, introducing its capabilities to different internal groups, such as the Scholarly Communications Committee, so that these groups can consider its potential use as a vehicle to support their activities. It will also be critical over time to introduce

The RU repository to faculty and students, via liaison activities and bibliographic instruction.

R. Marker suggested that the mechanics of the RU repository are understood by the people involved with it's development, but how it will be used is unclear. Will it be helpful in coursework content, library content or will it contain mainstream items ? Will it's use be parallel to SIRSI or integrated with SIRSI? Will its use mine NJDH as well as Rutgers University material?

G. Agnew felt that it's use can represent all of the above, none of the above or a combination of uses. It s design focuses on functionality, extensibility and interoperability to support a range of use scenarios. It will be up to RU how it is used. This year has been dedicated to it s technical development, so the focus has not been on brainstorming toward implementation.

The Fedora architecture is weak in metadata. RUL, as a Fedora developer, can contribute to the development of the METS-based metadata component.

There are partnerships developing for Fedora. The SAKAI digital learning framework has developed a partnership with Fedora to develop a graphical interface to objects held in a Fedora repository, so that these objects could be dragged and dropped from a Fedora repository into a SAKAI compliant system, which could be an in-house learning architecture or a standards-based commercial implementation, such asWebCT. Also, Shiboleth and Fedora will be partnering. In addition to enabling communities of trust that share an authentication and authorization mechanism for managing access to resources, Shibboleth is currently working on a web-based front end that allows faculty to make individual access decisions about their materials, within the framework on the university s Shibboleth implementation. By the end of the year, groups outside of the Rutgers community will be cataloging material to be ingested into the RU repository. Ultimately use of the RU Repository should be incorporated into the 5 year plan. Initiative. Strategic use should not be determined soley by DAWG and DataArch Committees. The planning should be more expansive. The goal for now should be to advance understanding of the capabilities of the RU Repository and to encourage discussion for strategic use.

G.Agnew and R. Marker have applied for an NSF grant, which, if received, would greatly extend the capabilities of MIC and the RU Repository for individuals, departments and organization to both customize their metadata and add metadata directly to the repository . The hope is to be able to ingest materials into the catalog with minimal library intervention.

The Goals for the coming year are:

  1. Inventory
  2. Establish core technical services
  3. Fedora education
  4. Outsourcing - shelf ready material for drop ship
  5. Recon - if Cabinet can provide money, Alexander Library can potentially be finished.
    • Continue Alexander and NJ DOCS at Alex and LSM.
    • Consider Annex record conversion - to convert manual to online, not to perform original cataloging for uncataloged collections- ISAWG will look at Annex recon.
    • Consider IJS monographs

Next meeting July 1st, 2004

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/tsc/minutes/tsc_04_06_03.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries