Pretty Big Trends, “Pretty Good” Practice, and New Tools Tim Jewell UW Libraries Collection Management Services UCLA Libraries Tech Talk Feb. 7, 2002

Related 2001 DLF Reports (available on DLF Web Site)DLF Web Site  Goal: “ARL SPEC Kit Plus”: identify and propagate best practices  Strategies for Building Digitized Collections (Abby Smith)  Building Sustainable Collections of Free Third-Party Web Resources (Lou Pitschmann)  Selection and Presentation of Commercially Available Electronic Resources (Tim Jewell)

Talk Overview I. Broad Context II. Idealized Practice Model  Digression 1 III. Collaborating on Standards  Digression 2 IV. Next Steps

I. Broad E-resource Context  Demand for “24x7” access high  “Google-ization”  E-resource budget shares continue to grow (mostly digital environment in 5 years?)  Most larger libraries rely on multiple providers and consortia  E-resources are complex to fund and acquire  Complexity makes management hard  Current integrated online systems mainly built for print collections?

II. Idealized Model of Effective Selection and Presentation Practices

A. Selection Policies and Strategic Plans  Well-developed selection guidelines and policies  Articulated goals and strategic approach to selecting or developing e- resources

B. Institutional Finance and Organization  Broad-based oversight and coordination committee structures  E-resource coordinators  Distributed “resource stewardship”

C. Internal Procedures for Initial Evaluation and Purchase  Systematic, understandable workflows; forms to expedite handling  Easy to determine order status  Information about library readily available to vendors.  Clear system for conducting trials

D. Licensing Issues and Practices  Process for smooth handling of licenses  Staff and users informed of licensing terms

E. Web Presentation Strategies  Aggregator database periodical holdings available, integrated into catalog and resource lists  A & I database citations linked to e-journal and aggregator holdings  User-oriented presentation of resources and “personalization” services

Digression 1: Web presentation examples  UW Libraries Gateway UW Libraries Gateway  Yale Libraries Online Journal List Yale Libraries Online Journal List  UW Healthlinks UW Healthlinks  Penn Gateway Penn Gateway  UW Engineering page prototype UW Engineering page prototype  UWILL UWILL  SFX SFX

F. User Support  General support information readily available to users  Comprehensible problem escalation/ triage paths for staff  Integration of instructional information  (New) Digital/interactive reference

G. Ongoing Evaluation and Usage Information  Planned/cyclic reviews prior to renewal  Systematic reporting of usage to staff  (New) Usability testingUsability testing

H. Preservation and Archiving  Efforts to establish preservation techniques and standards  Realistic assessment of E-resource preservation/archiving risks

I. Toward Integrated Systems for Managing Electronic Resources  Develop plans for e-resource support system  (New) Participate in developing standards for new e-resource support systems

III. Collaborating to Develop Standards for E-resource Management Systems

E-resource Management Systems and Initiatives 1: Available Now  Penn State (ERLIC)  MIT (VERA)  Michigan  Notre Dame  Texas (License Tracker)  Virginia  Yale

E-resource Management Systems and Initiatives 2: Under Development  California Digital Library  Cornell (?)  Johns Hopkins (HERMES)  Stanford  UCLA

“Communication History”  ALCTS Big Heads (Midwinter and Annual 2001)  “Web Hub”  Listserve  DLF Spring Forum, 2001  Metadata Group Meeting, Midwinter 2002

Digression 2: E-resource Management Demos  Yale (again) Yale  MIT (VERA) MIT  Penn State (ERLIC) Penn State  Texas (License Tracker) Texas  Johns Hopkins (HERMES) Johns Hopkins

“Compare and Contrast” Spreadsheet Analysis  Similarities  Platforms  Functions  Elements  Differences  Platforms  Functions  Elements

Advantages of Standards  Jump start local development (prevent “reinventing the wheel”)  Data sharing  “OCLC cataloging model”  Serials vendors  Publishers  Future portability  Focus vendor attention

Possible Drawbacks of Standards  Too early? (needs may change)  Inhibit innovation?  IOLS vendors might sacrifice competitive advantages  May accelerate negative licensing practices  Fair Use-hostile license models  UCITA

Interested Parties and Potential Partners  Developers of local systems  Digital Library Federation  ALA/ALCTS groups (“Big Heads”; Networked Resources Metadata Committee, etc.)  IOLS vendors (III, ExLibris, etc.)  “Open Source” community  NASIG, Serials vendors and publishers  Standards groups (NISO, TeSLA)

General Strategy  Goal: develop, register XML schema  Steps  Develop “functional specs.” statement over next month  Divide data elements into two “phases”  Identify and define phase 1 data elements over next 2-3 months  Publish, discuss, refine  Move on to phase 2 data elements

Phase 1 Elements (relatively) easy stuff  Set up 3 groups of volunteers to identify and define data elements and descriptions for:  Identification/description  “parent and child” structure and relationships  Licensing details  “what can you do” with this stuff?  Access and Support  “who you gonna call?”

Phase 2 Elements tougher/more institution- specific stuff  Process Status  “who’s got the ball?”  Financial Management  “who pays what?”  Usage Information  “what do we know about use?”

Pragmatic Problems and Issues  IOLS vendors may provide usable “modules” in time, but libraries feel urgent need to develop short-term fixes  Previous/ongoing investments in systems  Probably don’t want to make major changes to longstanding record-keeping practices  Multiple data streams need to be brought together

Relevant Dublin Core Elements?  Subject  Description  Publisher  Date(s)  Type  Format  Relation  Coverage  Rights

IV. Next Steps  Form “Functional Spec.” group  Call for more volunteers for phase 1  Communicate with potential partners  Plan for conference events  DLF  ALA Annual  NASIG  Etc.