ALA Orlando Highlights John Riemer CMCKG July 8, 2016

Tech Services “Big Heads”: 2CUL update Tech Services Integration Tech Services Initiative Now an “alliance” No unified leadership was possible. The participating institutions cannot spend each other’s money and each employee must be supervised by person on your campus. Columbia’s UL Jim Neal retired. Delays in selecting a new ILS.

Tech Services “Big Heads”: CIC Pilot report Sharing scarce language & format cataloging expertise 2013-2014 pilot (8 institutions) July 2016- (12 of 15 institutions) Rely on ILL infrastructure Cannot always lend expertise Some languages no one can handle Cooperatively acquire metadata? CIC = Consortium for Inter-University Cooperation … amounts to the Big 10 conference schools and University of Chicago The 2-year pilot was run by heads of cataloging at 8 schools. Consulted with ULs on whether to formalize the arrangements they tested. Yes, effective FY2017. Sometimes you have you have expertise on board but cannot actually lend it. Using the ILL structure to ship the materials that need to be cataloged at another institution. A number of languages no one in CIC can handle. Is consortial, coordinated cataloging possible? Can CIC cooperatively acquire metadata? (Sounded like this might equate to what Shared Cataloging Program is for us for e-resources)

ARL Membership Criteria Index volumes held volumes added (gross count) current serials total expenditures professional support staff FTE total I chaired a small group to review the membership of our Big Heads group, which has been done every 3 years. Our committee reviewed the past two triennial reviews. One of the two ARL-calculated indexes used is the Membership Criteria Index that held a 50% weight. You see the components here. The Membership Criteria Index no longer exists and several of the measures used to devise it are no longer collected.

ARL Library Investment Index total library expenditures salaries of professional staff members library materials expenditures number of professional and support staff members This is the other 50% of the weighting used in past BH membership reviews, and you see its components here. Our committee therefore used the Library Investment Index as the sole criteria for defining “the 24 largest ARL university libraries (including the Canadian libraries).”

Changes in “the 24 largest ARL university libraries” Southern California Emory Wisconsin Chicago Indiana In trying to carry out the review in as similar a fashion as the past two efforts, these would be the results. Two new institutions would be added and three dropped.

Option 2: Keep Current Size & Definition + Provisional Status for 3 Institutions The 24 largest ARL university libraries (including the Canadian libraries) One non-ARL university library (Stanford University) Two public libraries which meet the same criteria as the 24 largest ARL university libraries Three national libraries (standing members) Provisional 3-year membership for those who would no longer be members under Option 1 We had 3 options. Option 1: Face up to the unpleasantness of dropping 3 members currently on the “chopping block.” Option 3: Avoid that by simply expanding the group by 5 members. (Besides USC and Emory, we would be adding Johns Hopkins and Rutgers.) A slight majority of opinion favored the in-between option of Option 2, seen here. Provisional members would have the same privileges as full members except that they would not be eligible for leadership/officer positions due to their uncertain tenure.   A final determination of full membership would be made at the next membership review in 2019.

Results of Discussion Go with Option 2, for now Examine what we think our membership criteria should be. “If size is the criteria, maybe it's better to decide on a certain size and let the actual number of members vary?” “Look at what we want to accomplish as BH & then consider membership that is appropriate to meeting those goals.” How much should we mirror CCDO (Collection Development big heads)? “Re-examine the purpose/goals of the group – along with the membership criteria, as recommended by the review committee – before the 2019 review.” “If size is the criteria, maybe it's better to decide on a certain size and let the actual number of members vary?” “Form a Task Force to define what membership should like prior to the 2019 review” How much should we mirror CCDO (Collection development big heads)? “Our email responses about the three options have raised additional points that are worth considering.” “Look at what we want to accomplish as Big Heads and then consider membership that is appropriate to meeting those goals.” “Re-examine the purpose/goals of the group – along with the membership criteria, as recommended by the review committee – before the 2019 review.” [We took a vote to create TF to define the purpose and size of BH]

OCLC LBMC Update New name for the application “Bib It” No longer available on web as before; must locally host Used with WorldCat API Discontinuing the 500 note: Initial metadata generated by the OCLC Low Barrier Metadata Creation (OCLCLBMC) application. Can use it free as part of one’s cataloging subscription Harvard is planning to use it with a Turkish vendor

OCLC Pricing From the Board of Trustees, a new pricing philosophy Budget, Collection Size, Staffing all to be considered How to be fair to all member libraries and categories Three major components of OCLC invoices Cataloging Resource sharing Communications Some BH unhappy the bill is not “articulated”

Tech Services “Big Heads”: ISNI & ORCID Stanford wants Identifiers for those in its PeopleSoft database Cornell, Minnesota & UCLA encouraging ORCIDs Penn State & Yale emphasizing ORCIDs for grad students ORCID is “opt in”; ISNI not dependent on “opt in” Columbia: ISNI has both people and organizations Expect multiplicity of ID systems ILS cannot consume ID schemes, but IRs need ORCIDs, ISNIs Stanford: Desires ISNIs in lieu of LCNAF headings Cornell: OCLC’s entity work appealing Stanford is very interested in creating identifiers for faculty/students in its PeopleSoft database. They anticipate some kind of automated process. BnF and Harvard are very interested in ISNI membership, and this is one of the reasons. ORCIDs & ISNIs share a block of 16 numbers, so identifiers will not be duplicated. Cornell, UCLA are encouraging ORCIDs

PCC TG on ID Management in NACO ISNI Membership Attractiveness for Libraries Amount of LCNAF/ISNI file overlap & access to new data When advantageous to work in ISNI file vs. LCNAF? 37X fields possible to add in ISNI? How soon does an ISNI contribution appear elsewhere? Corporate name changes and real names/pseudonyms Avoidance of local authorities as motivator Undercut case for “NACO Lite”? Membership cost for ISNI includes what?

PCC TG on ID Management in NACO ISNI Membership Attractiveness for Libraries 9. OCLC willing to provide supporting infrastructure? 10. Contribute data clean up in lieu of funds, an option? 11. Authority vendors able to process data with either LCNAF/ISNI data?