Minutes of May 24, 2001 Meeting

Boyle, Borisovets, Cassel, Frusciano, J. Gardner, Marker, Montanaro, Murtha, Soong, Sewell, Weber
  1. Workstation-Bound E-Resources in IRIS (Weber):

    Issue: Certain resources (e.g., SciFinder Scholar; Beilstein) are restricted to specific workstations and not networked in our usual sense. Current procedures require that the holdings record includes an assigned LC call number for each location. Such number are meaningless in this context. Recommendation: Change holdings format to:

    Issue: Multiple notes in 856 ("Electronic Access"); only link is to instructions for setting up on a workstation; confusing. Recommendation: Change 856 notes to:
    1st note: Resource available on designated workstations. 2nd note: Access restricted to... 3rd note: For instructions to establish access...
    IPAC should look at and make recommendations on the computer file format display.

  2. Reference in APPs (Boyle):

    Issue: Review of how have described reference function in recent academic position profiles. Recommendation: Use phrase such as "will be part of a team of energetic professionals providing public services to users in both the traditional and digital environment."

  3. Public Services Goals Review (Boyle):
    1. "Review Reference Services": In progress. Have reset sights to not just do assessment, but also more long-range planning and discussion of issues. Looking at scheduling forum on the issue. Frusciano has volunteered to serve on a committee.
    2. "Create a comprehensive vision with time lines for public services": In progress. Don't so much need to create vision as to document it. Pieces being done by Instructional Services group, Ask a Librarian, distance education proposals, ELF planning, etc. Not really possible to do a timeline in our environment; basically need to be ready to respond to outside forces (ELF funds, etc.).
    3. "Review general databases for interface and utility.": Usurped by VALE. However Susan Beck, the chair of the General Resources Committee, did work with the VALE group that made the final recommendation.
    4. "Work with the proposed new training coordinator to identify librarian competencies...": New training coordinator to begin June 1. Will need to review the previously identified training needs.
    5. "Advance digital document delivery infrastructure and services": In progress: e.g., e-reserves; audio e-reserve pilot; acquisition of new scanning equipment.
    6. "Implement PROP": In Progress. Have identified projects to send to Cabinet for approval.
    7. "Review electronic journal and other full text access in IRIS and on our website": Unclear what our exact intent was. No systematic review; however pieces have been done.
    8. "Monitor and access document delivery project": Ongoing. Growth slow. Project has been further complicated by UnCover being taken over by Ingenta; there are currently technical problems and the service is not available at the moment. Recommendation: For next year, word as "monitor, access, and promote." Have already requested funds for a communications campaign for next year.
    9. "Use technology to advance instruction program": In progress: e.g., e-college program; ELF request from Instructional Services Committee; Robeson proposal to use videostreaming to make online instruction available at any time.
    10. "Extend networked printing to smaller libraries": Done.
    11. "Improve support for distance education": In progress. E-college project; Ask a Librarian.
    12. "Complete user assessment of website": Planning to do after the new interface is implemented.
    13. "Continue vendor training opportunities": Done
    14. "Review mechanisms for making new networked electronic resources available...": Done.

  4. PROP (Program Reinvention Opportunity Project Proposals) Review (Boyle):

    Review of the five projects previously identified.

    • The Luna Imaging System proposal removed–there is a separate committee that is going to be making recommendations on Luna. It need to be funded, but not by PROP.
    • MyLibrary/yourTILT proposal: The Instructional Services Committee would like something less restrictive proposed–there are some accessibility and other issues with yourTILT. They will propose and distribute some wording.
    • Other proposals (Ask a Librarian; IRIS Z39.50; GPO Record Review) will go forward to Cabinet.

  5. Catalog Records for Electronic Scholarly Resources (Marker):

    Issue: Currently we add the 856 tag to both print and microform IRIS records when we also have access to the item in electronic format. This means that all records must be updated manually. This becomes a workload issue when, as we are about to do, you replace a large electronic package (Proquest) with another package (Ebsco), and each 856 url must be individually deleted/added.

    Technical Services Proposal: Loading external-source records for large sets would allow for mass adds and deletes and would be cheaper and faster. A separate online record for each title would be created in IRIS; workload would be greatly reduced.

    Public Services Issues: There would no longer be a single access point for identifying holdings: the user would no longer see an "electronic access" link when looking at the IRIS print record; there would be a separate IRIS online record which would not reflect non-electronic holdings. Because "online" [material type designator, subfield "h"] is indexed as part of the title, the records for print and electronic versions will frequently not appear one after another on the IRIS Browse list. These are all sources of confusion to the user. In addition, we would probably chose not to load these records into RLIN since they would have to be deleted individually. However, many of our users use Eureka as their primary bibliographic search tool.

    No consensus: Most present thought workload trade-off worth the price; some did not.

  6. Budget Items (Boyle): Looking for items to propose for consideration for public services budgeting for next year:
    • Audio-reserve equipment (need to add Dana & Robeson)
    • Instructional technology (ISC needs to identify those items not covered by ELF)
    • Self-checkout machines (pilot: 4 machines; $100,000)
    • End-User scanners (to CD-ROM0
    • Color Printing/Photocopying
    • Distance Education Proposal (probably submitting again)
    • Security gates (losing tremendous amount of books; need to develop a schedule for replacement)

  7. Database Use Statistics (Montanaro): Review

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/psc/minutes/pscmin_01_05.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries