1. ALA Orlando Highlights
John Riemer
CMCKG
July 8, 2016

2. 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.

3. Tech Services “Big Heads”: CIC Pilot report
Sharing scarce language & format cataloging expertise pilot (8 institutions) July (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)

4. 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.

5. 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).”

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 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 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]

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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?