Minutes of January 15, 2009 Meeting

Grace Agnew, Ron Becker, Mary Fetzer (Chair), Karen Hartman, Tom Izbicki, Laura Mullen, Jim Niessen, Cathy Pecoraro, Vincent Pelote (videoconference), Glenn Sandberg, Bob Sewell, Gracemary Smulewitz (recorder), Julie Still (videoconference), Roberta Tipton (videoconference), Mary Beth Weber.

Mary Fetzer asked for a moment of silence in memory of Janet Howard and Charles Johnson.

Minutes of the December 18 meeting were approved.

Agenda adopted:

Chair's report

S. Bartz, J. Otto, M. B. Weber and G. Smulewitz and the chair met to discuss cataloging workflows emanating from the free electronic resource request form. The form influences the process. Technical Services will develop a simpler form for items that only require cataloging and which do not go through the process of having a URL registered and proxied. It will be reviewed before implementation.

The Team Leaders, with Gracemary and Cathy, met to continue the review of the electronic order request forms and to discuss the one-time purchase process and the amounts available. The Team Leaders are preparing letters informing the selectors of the budget status and the process that will be used for presenting one-time purchases this year. Part of the process will be to review the resources that are listed on the Central Funds Requests webpage.

User Services has received a recommendation to change database default settings to an advanced status, and asked LRC for feedback on these changes. It was unclear if the request was for all resources or limited to EBSCO databases. Council members also discussed the pros and cons of globally changing default settings. Since database vendors have options for customizing interfaces, it was suggested that they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Distributed Technical Services is poised to help selectors with customization of the interfaces. DTS receives notifications routinely from providers and publishers about changes, and will work with selectors and Dave Hoover to make appropriate changes. Cathy offered to attend the next User Services Council meeting to participate in the discussion. Meanwhile, LRC agreed that the interface for the EBSCO databases could be switched from default to the advanced search mode.

DRUPAL sort -Sam McDonald would like to finish the project and asked that selectors finish the sort.

Budget Report

Bob Sewell reported that it is most likely that the libraries will not have to give money back to the University this fiscal year. It is anticipated that there will be no givebacks for higher education. Consequently, we will have a substantial amount of money, and monies should be earmarked to possibly prepay invoices for 2010 memberships and subscriptions, to fund a portion of the approval plan and to purchase e-books and other one-time purchases. The breakdown has not been determined.

DTS cancelled duplicate subscriptions and renegotiated several packages to reach a goal of $300,000 for this giveback. Other monies may be contributed to the one time purchases and payments. It is possible that there may be additional salary savings funds as well as money from the encumbered and unpaid balances close to the end of the 2009 fiscal year. In addition, in planning for the 2009 subscription payments, money was put aside for inflation and not added to allocations directly. It is possible that after all invoices are paid, additional money will be available for the one-time purchases.

Council was reminded that there is no approval plan for Camden or Newark or for the sciences.

Nancy Hendrickson has prepared a list of databases and subscriptions that were prepaid last year. Many of these were purchased through PALINET. The amount is considerable. The list has to be evaluated to see where the money came from for the prepayments and to determine how much must be put aside from this one-time money for this year's prepayments.

Assessments of our current databases to determine what should be prepaid and what might be cancelled will be ongoing during the one-time purchase process. The Wilson OmniFile database is a candidate for an overlap analysis to determine duplication and how much and where savings might take place.

March 10 is the deadline for submitting suggestions. This allows enough time for Council to review the recommendations at its March meeting. The drop-dead date for expenditures is June 15.

This is the last year for the Science Direct payout. Due to a budget shortage, arrangements were made to pay portions of the subscription fee for the 2006 period in a three year payout starting in 2007 along with the regular payments for those periods. The package will be reviewed for savings.

Bob distributed a document from the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC): Statement on the Global Economic Crisis and its impact on Consortial Licenses. Members of LRC were in agreement with most of the document and were glad to see ICOLC take a stand on the economic crisis. However, there was disagreement with the statement contained in Principle #1.

"Purchasers will trade features for price; that is, we can do without costly new interfaces and features. This is not a time for new products."

Many felt that publishers and providers should continue to develop interfaces and features in products and that it is possible to purchase new products, perhaps as replacements for old products. The consensus was that the text should be changed or removed.

VALE Last Copy

Bob discussed issues surrounding the VALE Last Copy document. Many issues were unclear and questions arose, such as:

  1. Is the aim to define the last copy in the library or the last copy for the consortium?
  2. Are condition and digitization being considered?
  3. If digitization is being considered, who will digitize and how will funding be determined?
  4. How are reprints being handled?
  5. Should the focus be on monographs before anything else?

Issues that Rutgers is considering that are related to participation:

  1. What are the national trends?
  2. What do we need in order to participate?
  3. The Rutgers policy for last copy needs review
  4. The process for brittle books at Rutgers Libraries also needs review

An LRC subcommittee was established to review Rutgers' last copy policy. The members are: R. Sewell, B. Grant, J. Niessen, T. Izbicki, G. Smulewitz, and M. Fetzer. Someone from Cataloging and Metadata will also be included. It was also suggested that Chris Sterback should be invited to the next LRC meeting to discuss the impact of digitization on last copy policies.


Rutgers University, William Patterson and NJEDge are partnering on a $1 million IMLS grant for the development of a video-on-demand repository. The first open access collection of approximately 35-40 videos is available. Jane Sloan will be the point person and will be working with Film Media Group (FMG). We will be working with a permanent license. FMG may be giving us MARC records to import into Fedora. The repository will be using Shibboleth authentication and looking into XMACL as XML for Mac users. At this time there are many processes to work through.


OLE stands for "the Open Library Environment." The Mellon Foundation has funded a design project for an open source library system and wants to fund the complete system for higher education. Mellon feels that the product development is 3 years away but our impression is that 5 years is more realistic. Mellon has also funded Fedora and Sakai and supports interoperability and Service Oriented Architecture-the ability to add new services as needed.

Libraries use redundant services and would like the ability to design redundant services once and reuse them for other operations where needed.

Our goal is to have a cleaner design methodology and more efficient WISDL - web service description language. Services that are important are the ability to ingest, normalize, map, and convert.

We would also consider that the public catalog be outside of the ILS. There is an option and possibility to use Sakai and it is important to incorporate Shibboleth for authentication. Interoperabilty with EMatrix, the North Carolina State serial and electronic resource management system, is also a consideration.

There is a misperception that an open source system would incur no expense. The system would require lots of staffing. OLE is supported by VALE, and NJEDge is also interested; it will probably be housed at RU. One of the goals is to find ways to work smarter. Twelve libraries including Lehigh, Columbia and Penn have formed a collaborative effort. Princeton has also expressed interest.

Currently SIRSI is pushed beyond its limits and OLE is our ultimate replacement for SIRSI. The latter system is designed for a print environment. It does not support multiple formats and is not API friendly. It is commercially closed and there is little control over enhancements.

OLE has conducted a number of regional workshops. Grace, Chris Sterback, Judy Gardner and John Brennan will be going to Lehigh to help determine essential core functions. Two others will join from VALE to work on this project.

A draft of the build will be drawn in March and a community review will take place in April. The final review will take place in the summer of 2009.

TAS Assignments

Mary Beth has asked YBP for an administrative login. Currently Mary Belinsky can be sent questions about monographic orders. Robert Hilliker will become more involved with foreign orders. TAS is currently caught up with orders.

E-Books Task Force

The E-books Task Force has questioned whether all electronic book orders should be throughYBP exclusively or whether other vendors such as Coutts be considered. A Coutts representative visited Rutgers to discuss e-books as well as Oasis, their content management system for placing and managing orders.

  1. Coutts has a similar Web management tool to YBP's GOBI, called OASIS.
  2. Presently 750 libraries worldwide work with Coutts.
  3. Single user access to e-books is defined as 1-3 people at a price of 1.3 % list price. Three to five users is priced at 1.7% above list price. There are different pricing models and the numbers are negotiable.
  4. MyILibrary is the e-books platform. The entire collection can be loaded on this platform.
  5. It is possible to have dual access to e-books and there will be two URLs reflected in bibliographic records (one from MyILibrary and one from the publisher). Only Springer charges an additional fee for dual access.
  6. Coutts currently has 175,000 e-books mostly from university presses.
  7. Coutts will be marketing the ability to access articles from e-books to university professors. This capability will have an impact on the library participation in reserve programs.

Bob had declared a moratorium on e-book purchasing through YBP due to the pricing structure, which is 1.55% above list price for single item purchases. The moratorium has been lifted for now.

The E-Books Task Force is also examining free e-books resources, specifically Project Guttenberg, Google Books and the Boston Library Consortium. Three task force members have been asked to look at what is required to participate in these projects.

E-book bibliographic records are available from Serials Solutions.

Library Resources Council Goals

Discussion ensued about the status of LRC goals in relation to the Strategic Plan.

Goal I - Improve the quality of scholarly resources and information services that support the advancement of academic excellence at Rutgers:

I.A - Expand the collections both electronic and in print to the level of our peer institutions.

Ron Jantz was successful with CLIR on hidden collections such as maps and trying to renew cataloging. Have an IMLS grant out to preserve maps. The stem cell guide has been completed. We may want to invite Ron and Chad Mills, as members of the Web Services Team, to do a demonstration on linking to research guides.

Gary Golden was contacted by the Courier Post about digitizing its photo archive. He sent an email announcing an NEH national newspaper project to develop a partner portal with the Courier Post. Gary will contact Grace and representatives from TAS, Jane Otto and Mary Beth Weber, to pursue this.

I.E: Build a preservation program for the collections in all formats to ensure that critical and unique collections remain available in perpetuity.

Status of preservation program proposal: The recommendation was that Farideh Tehrani should bring the proposal back to LRC with revisions resulting from Cabinet review.

The Annex Committee is looking at an overview of operations that was created in 1999. They will be meeting an additional time and have had good substantive discussions while looking at policies such as not sending material to the Annex that is duplicated at Dana and Camden. Final report target is March.

Dean Meister is preparing a description of the Annex binder, which is used to determine action on books supposedly sent to the Annex but haven't been found.

I. F. Focus the creation of digital resources on the libraries' unique collections and on the output of Rutgers University, with an emphasis on support for the faculty research process.

Digital Projects - TAS is prepared to begin the process pending a determination of what is appropriate to digitize. Ron Becker will bring a list of prioritized digital projects to LRC. Grace Agnew, John Brennan and Bob Sewell will meet to establish workflows.

TAS is ready to roll out ETDs to all graduate schools. Rhonda Marker and Sean Ellis are currently working on this; we will invite them to our April LRC meeting.

The review of goals will continue at the next LRC meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.

Next meeting: February 19
Next recorder: J. Still

Revised 2/10/09 and 2/19/09; accepted by LRC 2/19/09

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/lrc/minutes/lrc_09_01_15.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries