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

2. 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)

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

4. 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?

5. II. Idealized Model of Effective Selection and Presentation Practices

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

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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

15. 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

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

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

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

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

20. 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

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

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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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?”

27. 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?”

28. 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

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

30. 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.