afternoon discussion topics

We are now in the afternoon portion of the program, which is a discussion run by the Committee on Professional Governance.
The nine topics of the discussion are:

#1: Reference:
How to respond to evolving user behaviors
* in-person reference still viable?
* chat, sms reference? (24/7 access?) (see article: "how to be a person")
* web 2.0 challenges and opportunities
* meeting users where they are

#2: Relationship to information providers:
* how can libraries influence the marketplace for information resources?
* new scholarly communication models
* new relationships with publishers

#3 Library personnel
* who is eligible for library education today? Is technology the one determining factor for admission into a library program?
* are greater tech skills the greatest need in library education?
* in the work place,, what of massive retirement? downsizing? what role can technology play here?
* what of competitors for the library candidates? are we going to match their offers?
* is the ability to "organize" or the "love of reading" no longer some of the attraction to becoming a librarian?

#4 Technology
* how can libraries evolve along with the evolution of technology and user behavior?
* will instruction become a much heavier load, more important than subject bibliography?
* The need for ongoing training, evaluation and assessment ...
* Library security redefined
* who will fund the technology?

#5 Collections
* what is the Library Collection?
* "UC Library Collection" -- emphasis on collaboration and sharing
* challenges of silos, including unique and special collections
* institutional repositories
* next-gen tech services, including issues of streamlining, collaboration
* books versus digital

#6 Library buildings
* What's the value of the building as a place? As a library as place?
* how do we work with other uses and roles of the library?
* Library service desks
* space for computers and computer labs
* quiet study; group study
* social gathering: cafes, programs, meeting friends

#7 Campus roles
* instruction -- are we stuck with 1-credit library classes? Is there some other direction to go?
* outreach and publicity -- is there a theme or mode of communication we should work on?
* value of a library credit course
* "library as center of campus?" (are we? as a building?)
* should librarians do research for campus units? (since we're experts, after all)

#8 Library networks
* How can libraries increase partnerships to improve services and increase the breadth and depth of the collections? there are various opportunities with various organizations.
* OCLC, Next Gen Melvyl
* Regional management of retrospective print collections
* shared approval plans

#9 choose your own!

Mass Digitization at CDL

Heather Christenson, CDL Mass Digitization Project Manager, is here to tell us what UCOP does in this area.

Quick facts about the mass digitization program:
* we're #2 in the world of the number of books we've digitized (behind michigan)
* 2.5M total digitized books from UC
* You can find them in next-gen melvyl, hathitrust, google books, internet archive, open library... and possibly other digital libraries... e.g. the biodiversity heritage library
* but physically, they are on servers at michigan, indiana (backed up on tape), IA and Google
* 445,000+ of the books are public domain
* books are digitized from the RLFs and campuses
* they have been doing it for about 3.5 years now -- in Oct. 2005, CDL was an OCA founding member

The projects: CDL works with both Google and the Internet Archive locations.
The IA has digitized 200,000 public domain books. The scanning operations have moved back to IA; the space in the NRLF and SRLF has been reclaimed by UC libs. Funding is now more uncertain for this project because of the budget. IA is scanning from the NRLF and SRLF and some other smaller projects, such as the UCD state water resources reports collection.

The Google projects have digitized 2.3 million books, in copyright and out, all languages. Foldout pages are skipped. This project is funded by Google. Google is scanning at: NRLF, Santa Cruz (for Humanities and social sciences), San Diego (for East Asian, International Relations, Pacific Studies, and Scripps); planned to do the Bancroft, UCLA.

Why do this? Many reasons:
* discovery, preservation, possible new textual research, and collection management -- might give us the opportunity to use our space in different ways. Also: to be a leader in this area ... and, carpe diem! Let's get started on this project.

Will books go away?
* No, but there's a lot to explore. We need to do research on what users need.

What do people at CDL do all day?
* CDL's role is to make relationships with partners, provide technical leadership, project management and coordination, guidance to campuses and facilitation, and stewardship of the output. For instance, they are currently working on the IA and Google contracts, and have played a big role in the HathiTrust project.

The Google Settlement:
* There has been a lot of controversy over the Google settlement:
people are concerned that it would give Google a monopoly over book digitization; corner the market on orphan works, etc. On the other hand, the benefits are that it may make many books more accessible; and allows UC to retain its copies of Google digitized in-copyright scans for replacement purposes.

Finally:
things that libraries should advocate for:
* assist and encourage rights holders to release their books in the public sphere
* press for orphan works legislation
* robust privacy controls
* neither we, nor other librareis, need rush to purchase an institutional subscription

What's next?
* digitization continues
* Google books and next, IA books, will go into the HathiTrust
* planning for access mechanisms in HathiTrust, e.g. in WorldCat Local
* making books viewable -- Univ. of Mich. is using a grant to help determine copyright for individual books. Goal is to make as many books viewable as possible.

For more information, see the InsideCDL site.

research update

Michael Yonezawa of RPD gave a quick update; he pointed out that grant applications for this year are due by January 9. Information on the grant process for this year, and last year's grant recipient information, is all posted on the website. There are three types of research grants again this year: grants, minigrants and presentation grants.

The other committee reports are linked on the LAUC website.

hashtag

p.s. the hashtag for twitter et al for the assembly is #lauc09 -- there's a few people posting (despite the lack of outlets in the room).

UC Commission on the Future

There's been a lot of discussion so far about the UC Commission on the Future. Both Lucia Diamond and Janet Lockwood mentioned that the Commission is dealing with issues that affect libraries and should get feedback from LAUC members; Lucia also mentioned that they really value written comments and feedback -- there's a button on the website to leave comments, and you can push it and tell them what you think.

Janet Lockwood

Janet Lockwood of UCOP is currently presenting and taking questions.

Janet Lockwood also talked about the Commission on the Future, as a major UCOP initiative. Lockwood said that can't think of any of the commission workgroups where the libraries don't have an interest (budget, etc) -- and strongly encouraged librarians to give feedback to the commission.

The other major initiative at UCOP is the HR committee on post-retirement benefits; they have been visiting all the campuses. The issue is to present to the campuses the status of the retirement plan, and post-retirement benefits (esp. health benefits). We were assured however that the retirement benefits we have are not going anywhere.

There's also a major study of salaries in the system, including for librarians; with a comparison to 8 other schools (including Harvard and MIT). The report was just posted on the website: see the link to the report.
The report used the salary data of 535 librarians (including ULs and AULs).

Lucia had asked Lockwood to address two additional issues including:

* The distinguished step -- Lockwood mentioned that there are similarities between the distinguished step and step 6 of the ladder faculty; which just got worked on by UCOP. However: there was no consensus in UCOP about step 6, though; it really depends on the local campus. Similarly, Lockwood thinks that UCOP would see the distinguished step as part of the normal merit review process; they wouldn't intervene in that discussion.

* The second question was about the trend of hiring outside the librarian series, especially with technology. Again, Lockwood said that UCOP supports local authority and tries to stay out of the decisions that are made at the local level.

Finally, Lockwood mentioned that the restructuring at UCOP continues; her department has gone from 17 to 8, for instance.

Questions:
A question was asked about the disparity of distinguished step requirements; merit increase requirements are very different on various campuses. The questioner said that it's a little disingenuous for UCOP to say it's up to the individual campuses, since so much is *not* left up to the campuses.

response: UCOP needs a written summary or chart of exactly what role you want UCOP to play in determining the step. OP won't write the criteria, but they are happy to facilitate among the 10 campuses.

Underway

The LAUC assembly is now underway in Barrows Hall on the Berkeley campus. We are now in the introductory morning part of the assembly, with the president's report and a report from Janet Lockwood of UCOP.

Chuck Ekman gave the introduction to the assembly and talked about the importance of discussing professional governance in the library. After some official business, including thanking the local arrangements committee, Lucia Diamond gave her president's report, announcing the four travel awards that were given to attendees and thanking members.

Lucia said that the issues that LAUC is broadly discussing include finding technology that will allow us to communicate across the campuses; the UC Commission on the Future; and the loss of librarians in the system that may not be replaced (in addition, three UL positions are open now). Other major topics include the future of librarianship (to be discussed this afternoon) and the impact of budget cuts on all of us.

Lucia pointed out that this will be just the beginning of the discussion, and that other libraries who are facing the same issues might be interested in our results. Additionally, members of the CPG (who are leading the discussion this afternoon) will be meeting with members on campuses for discussion; and there will also be cross-campus discussion via communication tools, eg. a wiki and blog to be set up.

She also addressed the LAUC budget. LAUC was asked to only do one assembly per year. We also had to send in a LAUC budget; which was approved, but we have to cut the LAUC budget by nearly 1/3 for next year (that's the worst case scenario; might not happen).

Next up is Janet Lockwood's presentation.

LAUC assembly on December 3, UCB

The LAUC Fall Assembly will be held on December 3, at UC Berkeley's Barrows Hall. The website for the Assembly is now live. Fall Assembly reports are posted on the LAUC website.

presentations posted

The presentations from the 2009 Spring Assembly are now posted on the LAUC website:
http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/assembly/

I'm working on getting all the committee reports up as well.

Next Gen Discussion with time for General Questions

Summary of What Patti's Group Discussed

• Large search results from Next Generation Melvyl (NGM) are difficult to adjust.
• Facets should be customizable.
• People are confused by the overlap of the First Search version of WorldCat with our WorldCat Local.
• Clients have expressed that they would like to be able to make simultaneous interlibrary loan requests and NGM does not handle this.
  
• People don't like to use or teach NGM.
• People are worried that the FirstSearch version will going away. Patti mentioned that, like Melvyl, this is not anticipated to happen anytime soon. (Karen might have said that, but I was typing quickly.)
  
• Some felt strongly both pro and con about Amazon results appearing in NGM search results. Karen noted that only librarians were bothered by this feature in testing and focus groups.
  
• Right now librarians have difficulty locating conference proceedings in NGM.
  
• People would like to be able to limit by publisher.
• People wanted to know when or if NGM should be re-named.
  
• People want a more customizable interface than NGM currently has.
  

Martha's Group

• See Mitchell's blog notes because they were read off from his notes for the most part.
• One interesting comment (made by Patti) is that she'll send out an example of the Hathi Trust (see the link in the comments for this entry)
  
• Someone wondered how or whether OCLC could scale up all its projects and library management service. Karen replied that they have tried to model have circulation transactions based on 5% of the world's libraries participating in WorldCat as an integrated library system (ILS) and that the amount is staggering. It's how it would or will work.
  

Jim Dooley's Group

HOTS survey about language expertise led to a discussion of using those skills of bibliographers.
Another question was raised that NGM was because UC has budget troubles, but we are actually try to be able to try and get efficiencies that really concentrates on the hidden or the unique. To give attention to the resources that have been off the radar.
Questions about user service input other than saying it will be there. There is no indication of the form it will take, but don't really know. Martha comments that people may not have the "bandwidth" to do this kind of work.
Jim relates that doing surveys uncovering expertise is nice, but doing something with it is what remains critical.
Issue of finance climate makes it difficult to cooperate and move around money and it needs to be worked on. The human factors (amount of work, etc.) in terms of what we do and how we work, will have profound impacts on people. The people who need to do the work, need to buy into the process.

Karen's Group
The group mostly asked questions. The nuance of groups was felt to be important. Karen re-emphasized the common elements, but that the differences were in the report referenced in the OCLC report in her slides.
Also discussed the importance of working on CJK.
Feels its important to emphasize the beta nature of the FAS tags. There was a lot of interest in this issue. Had a discussion of why users don't tag. Noting that there needs to be a self-interest is a tag. The current look for WorldCat is more static.
Fiscal year '10 is the time for the getting more metadata exposure. For example, Ebsco will be allowing its metadata in WorldCat.
Also talked about what will catalogers do if mainstream publications are represented. Talked about the concept of redeploying labor to provide access to hidden or unique collections. The conversation also went in the direction of verification and selling it to faculty.
The use of Dewey for international resources. Outside the U.S. in Europe and in Australia, the Dewey work is used heavily for multi-language use. Pulls together information without using labor intensive subject analysis.

Question from General Audience
Placement of NGM encourages undergraduates to use it erroneously. Wonders how the stats will change.
How do you evaluate that a user is coming back?
Either it's a zero sum, or they don't shun it.
Karen suggests a click stream analysis. In her examination of some of these is that there are a lot of click throughs via Google. She says that knowing that kind of information buries that data. Using Armature, which is a tool that WorldCat uses, we might be finding more information on this. Patti is interested in this type of analysis and would like to do a presentation on the statistics. Karen noted that 80% of traffic coming from another location.

Summary of Sessions

After a short refreshment break we had small group discussions with the three panelists, and then a closing summary session. Then each panelist summarized the group discussion.

Some thoughts and observations:

• Librarians worried about commercialism of Amazon ads on World Cat Local, but no other user group worried.
• Conference proceedings would be a useful limit--exists in current Melvyl
• A customizable interface would be a nice enhancement to World Cat Melvyl.
• Question: Are we overly simplistic about what user needs are? Amazon model not always relevant.
• Next Generation Technical Services group must consider impact of the Hathi Trust agreement for mass digitization.
• Big challenge: Ingesting non-Roman scripts.
• OCLC tagging systems using LC subject headings is currently in research phrase.
• Why do users tag, or who is more likely to tag? One view here: http://mstrohm.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/why-do-users-tag-detecting-user-motivation-in-tagging-systems/
• How can user-contributed metadata be trusted? Faculty sometimes concerned about Wikipedia etc.
  

Discussions with Karen

Question 1:
Undergraduates and consistent results from user groups?
Answer:
They weren't consistent, but they were common. In another section, there were differences among librarians and also commonalities.
Question:
How to incorporate the differences
Answer:
Through focus groups found that well suited to undergrads. More than the undergrad wants and less than what the expert user wants. There's an academic tinge to it. Wanted to emphasize the common. A lot on the delivery v. the discovery. All wanted the digital first. For the physical in nature, wanted abstracts or summaries. Convenience across every group.
Question:
What are some solutions for delivery systems? What solutions do you propose?
Answer: Valerie Horton and writes on a lot of delivery services. Experience of clicking on a link and getting to something. The message is one for libraries and what the user experience is and does it met there expectations.
Question: who does the abstracting for articles in WorldCat.
Answer: mostly from the British Library. Other sources are beyond what OCLC has but it will expose the metadata
Question: the quality control is a serious problem. One librarian gets really bad records and has to work hard to change them. Looking for quality control.
Answer: looking at national library agreements from those like that from the National Library of China (duplication of records are a serious problem). CJK matching algorithm is not great, but the idea is to attract the libraries into the system. They are in conversations with Callus and things look good.
Question: Tell us more about non-Roman cataloging
Answer: Not an expert, but subject-level expertise is growing. Most major growth is occurring outside the United States. Need to be respectful of those other standards in other countries. For subject heading schemes in other countries and languages. Will bring headings into a record and try to match OR will do an authorized duplicate record. Outside the U.S., some countries are adopting Dewey.
Question: have you found that conversations with vendors helped with getting records that would otherwise not be available to OCLC
Answer: Fastest growing segment/division in OCLC is contracts for records (e.g. Springer, Elsevier, etc.). Openly Infomatics was purchased by OCLC to basically help with stuff. [seems like it duplicates the SFX stuff or would want to replace it]
Question: Won't catalogers be less useful.
Answer: Golden opportunity for uncovering hidden collections. Thinks that normalization, etc will free up time to do more that is unique.
Question: Library Thing
Answer: LC promoting FAS approach to cataloging. OCLC has a file of FAS subject heading list and decided to create a FAS headings with authors. Karen mentions a reference to "who will tag" Karen will send the citation to Sam Dunlop.

Breakout sessions with speakers

Patti Martin:
Specific responses to WorldCat Local features:

• WCL sets
• facets set by OCLC, let people choose
• Large results sets
• Overall WCL/OCLC database
• Multiple copy requests will not be in initial Request launch

Pilot label - people resistant to using, teaching
Michale Athern OCLC - quote that WorldCat interface going away

• a gradual development are future

Amazon ads - pros and cons
Librarians - concerned; no other group concerned

Helpful to Amazon review, scholarly

Conference proceedings focus

• Limit by publisher
• Design limits
• New name for Melvyl?

Going out to other databases - journal/scholarly sources
Customizable interface

Martha Hruska:
Didn't get into details about technical services for non-tech services librarians.

Shared cataloging issues at UCSD
Cataloging monographs in the social sciences, with some electronic resources. Work with non-Roman language original catalogers

Questions about collaborative acquisitions. Discussions with CDC
Collecting in areas where the local campus has language ability or expertise

"Commonly held" collections - materials where languages or subjects are on several campuses
Domestic UC press, Canadian UC press titles

The conversation about collections has been going on for years, but the technology and motivation has changed.

Inventories of campus expertise levels for languages, technical experience

Non-catalogers spending time with catalogers to be work in areas outside of job positions.

Challenges with stakeholders, including people currently doing the work, to promote buy-in with projects. Changes with department culture to look to "larger world view to make changes.

Is attention being paid to other formats, such as online newspapers that may not be archiving themselves?

Survey of Shelf-ready resources on campuses and where costs fall. CDC collaborations of collaborative purchases as groups.

Anectdotal experiences with commercial services (Amazon) for the common needs, with the unusual to be handled by all campuses.

User needs may be overly simplistic - without teaching people about other ways to approach the options or expertise in locating or working with materials.

Scalability of operations to campuses, with Technical Services, Public Services, and administrative functions at campus levels
Calhoun: Recommends sending email to Andrew Pace. Looking at issues of have processes would be addressed in large implementations.
Example: How many circulation transactions if you captured 5% of all circulatiosn worldwide.

Dooley:
Some similar with Hruska and others difference.

Question: Talk about HOTS survey of language and format expertise among catalogers, can the same be used to leverage bibliographers expertise across campuses?
Dooley: Not yet talked about in HOTS but may be of interest.

Question: Is NGTS a smokescreen that campuses are broke and concern about being able to afford.
Dooley: Seeing if there are efficiencies to highlight unique, hidden materials within UC system that are not found elsewhere.

Question: Composition of task groups. Would there be public services, other groups.
Dooley: They will be there but don't have a timeline to be involved.

Observation. Doing surveys of expertise but then to do something with the expertise. methods of cooperation where expertise can be used.

Question: Cooperative approval plans. The whole UC finance climate that makes campus interaction to move money between them in an inhibitor. This needs to be addressed.

Comment: Human factors that will have influence on people and how they do their jobs. People doing the work will need to have their buy-in.

Calhoun:
A theme of other groups - when talking about user needs, you need to use a nuiansed approach.
Different users with different needs.
Referral to the study on user needs - things that were common among the users but also how they differ

Spent time talking about records with non-Roman scripts - Chinese. Loading of records from Taiwan, Hong Kong making a mess in the database. Seeking records with content from East Asia but noting the work within record fields to make the records usable over time.

Intrigued by vast cloud tags in displays in the research display slides.
Diane Bison-Getts (OCLC)
Where do the tags come from, are they more than user submitted tags, or researcher contributed tags.
If a social environment created to allow/encourage people to submit tagging.

Record sets - helping libraries to acquire these data sets

How can WorldCat Local and WorldCat.org point to more electronic resources beyond article metadata. British Library is a huge source of article metadata and FirstSearch. Plans for fiscal year 2010 for metadata for e-resource aggregation. Agreement with Ebsco to expose metadata (not full text) to OCLC.
'Expose your metadata, then more people will use your material."

Talked about subject in all sessions.
What will catalogers do if records are included in collection aggregations? Redeploying labor to enhance hidden collections.

Hidden collections. How can user contributed metadata be verified?
Selling faculty that the metadata is accurate. Will faculty question the metadata?

How much description of collection is enough for special collections? Who should supply the metadata? Is it better undescribed in the value or have something that is incomplete?

Use of Dewey in non-English worldwide. Dewey translated into 32 languages and descriptions. In U.S. seen as a second class structure but in UK, research on using Dewey numbers and captions can be used for non-English collections. Mapping to concepts within other languages, then used to group back to groups with different languages.

Making the materials already cataloged affordable for the world users.

Question: Is placement of Next Generation Melvyl on webpage influence use? How do statistics reflect the placement?

Question: Next Generation Melvyl slower to display holdings, similar to Google interface, breaks the rules of traditional online catalogs by including article records.

Question: NGM users are coming back to NGM. Either the same people are returning or the non-returning users are being replaced with new users.

Comment of web-optimization and clickstream analysis. Study of patterns of clickstreams, where data comes to library sites and then goes. What strikes is there are a lot of click-throughs from Google. Knowing that information for Melvyl that buries details - using Amature (analysis tool) about how the clickstreams are working.

WorldCat.org 80% traffic from other websites - only 12% from original website such as bookmarks or direct links.

Next Generation Technical Services--Martha Hruska Presentation

Great deal of work in last four years, in response to 2005 Bibliographic Services Task Force Report.

Redefining collections--great opportunity to expose hidden collections throughout UC.

Next Generation Technical Services charge:

• Move technical services to network level, away from local level.
• Identify areas of coordination and collaboration across UC.
• Quickly implement any "low-hanging fruit" changes, with approval from Executive Tea

Goal of Next Generation Tech Services project is to address the "backend" recommendations from 2005 report.

Next Generation Tech Services values:

• Speed up processing
• View all aspects of tech services as single, system-wide; eliminate redundancy
• Start with existing metadata that is "good enough" and go from there

Guiding values--partial list:

• Tech services "critical infrastructure" for collections

Information resource types--not perfect taxonomy, but a useful framework:

• Commonly held content in Roman script
• Comminly held content in non-Roman script
• UC unique collections
• 21st Century Emerging Resources--blogs, wikis, tweets?, etc.

Task groups will be formed to consider how best to provide technical services for each type of resource.

Mind shift: from "cataloging" to "technical services" needed to support a collection.

Next Generation Technical Services task force just beginning its work. Possible outcomes:

• Reduced silos in technical services work
• Collaborative approval plans
• Collaborative outsourcing
• Improved tools for system-wide acquisitions & cataloging
• "Shared Print in Place" norm rather than exception
• Less redundant work, which frees time to focus on local campus priorities

Web site for more information here: http://uclib-s10.cdlib.org/about/uls/ngts/

Martha Hruska on Next Generation Technical Services

This is becoming mostly a reflection on our successes and our failures from that taskforce report called the BSTF Report of 2005 at libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf . Check out all of these acronyms:

• BSTF (2005 Bibliographic Services Task Force Report)
• CAMCIG (Cataloging and Metadata Common Interest Group)
• UC CONSER (UC CONSER Funnel Program)
  
• CDL (California Digital Library)
  
• HOTS (Heads of Technical Services)
  
• HOTS SCP (Shared Cataloging Program Advisory Committee (SCP AC))
  
• JSTOR (JSTOR - short for Journal Storage)
  
• IEEE (Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers)
  
• CDC (Collection Development Committee)
  
• ACG (All Campus Group)
  
• ACIG (Acquisitions Common Interest Group)
  
• PAG (Preservation Advisory Group)
  
• PCC (Program for Cooperative Cataloging)
• HOSC (Heads of Special Collections)
  
• NGTS (Next Generation Technical Services)

Undoubtedly you know most of these.

The issues covered here are clearly some of the big picture type.
Next Generation Technical Services (NGTS) Charge that hopes to move to the network level and take advantage of collaboration among the UC. Also interested in low-hanging fruit of UCs.
Interesting that she leaves some of the needs up to bibliographers when I think that they have less and less time to contribute to these broader issues. Or is that really the case? Hm.

The difficulty Martha and most others have either pointed out or ignored is still one of whether there are enough people with interest or sufficient expertise to provide assistance in technical (metadata/cataloging/tagging/?) areas outside libraries. Do others with skill care enough to work on things that are not clearly of value to them right now?

Says that workflow models are not really great or discovered yet for various types of grey materials (e.g. scholarly websites).

The proposed models, funding and organizational structures are the more critical aspects of changes of this sort.

The other critical half is clearly the evaluative aspect. Martha has some ideas about how this works.

Martha refers to shared collecting and stuff like UCM being the repository for Springer books (those purchased online I presume).

libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts

Martha Hruska - Nex Gen Technical Services

Martha Hruska, Chair of the UC Next Generation Technical Services Steering team and member of the NGTS Executive Team, AUL Collections Services, UC San Diego

NGTS Context
BSTF report 2005: next steps
UC related inititatives over the last four years
Catalysts for Change
NGTS Charge

BSTF Report 2005

• Looking at workflow and practices within infrastructure.
  
• Adopting New Cataloging Practices
• Supporting Continuous Improvement

• Rearchitecting cataloging workflow
• Appropriate metadata scheme
• manually enrich metadata in imprtant areas
• Automate Metadata Creation

UC Inititatives over the last 4 years+

• CAMCIG Reports
• UC CONSER Funnel
• CDL/HOTS agreement to fund temporary SCP Chinese cataloger
• SCP Scope Statement review
• HOTS Cataloging Expertise Spreadsheet
• Shared print Projects CDL/CDC

• Journals (licensed journals, JSTOR, IEEE)
• Canadiana
• CDC Prospective Shared Print Monographic task force

Catalysts for Change: Beyond Cataloging and Bibliographic Services

• LC Final Report of the Working Group on the future of Bibliographic Control
• NG Melvyl
• Requires harmonization of UC cataloging policies and process revisions
• Requres cooperative approaches to acquisitiosns approaches
  
• Mass Digitization
• Hathi Trust
• Web archiving
• Expose Hidden Collections
• Mange the life-cycle or born digital and other emerging formats
• UC-wide and campus financial pressures

NGTS: Charge

Develop a framework for the next three to five years for NGTS for the Uc Libraries. the steering team will:

• address the broad transformative changes that will move technical services to the network level and that will reap the benefits of collaborative technical services
• identitfy areas of coordination and collaboration among the UC Libraries techncial services operations
• quickly implement identified 'low-hanging furuit" changes 9with approval from the executive Team)

Shared Print - join approval plans across UC system to reduce duplication on campuses
HOTS survey - How many campuses use shelf-ready services from vendors

Rationale

• Both user expectation and financial realities to maximize efficiency and effectiveness of processes
• NGTS
• Position UC libraires to support NGM and address "backend" recommendatons to BSTF report

NGTS Scope: Values

• Speed processing throughout technical services function
• View all aspects to technical services as s system-wide, single enterprise
• Start with existing metadata that is 'good enough" from all available resources
• All for continuous improvement to "good enough: including from the world beyond UC Libraries: expert communities, vendors, other libraries

Guiding Principles

• TS provide infrastructure for library collections
• TS services provide broad access to and facilitate discovery of library collections

Graphic based on Lorcan Dempsey at RGL Partners Meeting (2008)
Relationship between users, libraries, publsihers, vendors in search, discovery, and retrieval

Information Resource Types

1. Commonly Held Content in Roman script
2. Commonly held Content in Non-Roman Script
3. UC Unique Collections
4. 21st Century Emerging Resources

Task Group Charges
Each task group to develop 1-3 models for each information resource group

Each model must

• Address process for selection

NGTS Process
Web site http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/uls/ngts/
The website is now active - at least they have the name, more details will follow.

Proposed models vetted
Explore workflow, policies

Phase 1 - May - Sept. 2009

• Best practices and current initiatives within UC and beyond

Phase 2 - Oct. 2009 - Jan. 2010

• Outline proposed models
  

Phase 3 - Feb.2010 - March 2010

• Analyze proposed models

Possible Outcomes

• Redefine, break down silos in TS functions
• Collaborative approval plans
• Collaborative outsourcing and other vendor services
• Improved tools for system-wide acquisitions and cataloging
• 'Shared Print in Place' becomes norm rather than exception
• less redundant work -> campus focus on local priorities

Where to afford and keep materials. May not be in RLFs
UC Merced taking on responsibility for shared print holdings for Springer E-Books package

Less copies but sharable across system

Questions to Martin

Question: There was an announcement that the pilot would be expanding with a July roll-out date. Can you talk about this?
Martin: July rollout date pulled back.

Question: If pilot extended and Melvyl phased out, is WorldCat Local really a pilot?
Martin: If pilot is accepted, steps for decommissioning Melvyl.

Martin - Where are we at with the WCL pilot

Melvyl usage still outpaces use of WorldCat Local (combined)

There is still enough interest in WCL and Melvyl to use and return.

What has happened since May 2008?

Usability studies
Log analysis
1/4 searches generate more that 500 results
~10% of searches produce zero results
Relationship building
Learning to describe UC culture to OCLC and learning to talk to each other

What is the Pilot?

• Look and feel is similar to University of Washington version
• Ten campus specific views and one UC-wide view
• not able to ingrate with multiple campus OPACS

The Basics

• Interface usability
• Interoperability with ILSs
• Seamless interoperability with UC-eLinks and Request
• the ability to lead, access and display non-traditional records
• Digital assets, journals, mass digitization

How Will the pilot be evaluated
Enhanced discovery functionality
Enhanced delivery resources

Fully integrate Request functionality

In progress

• OCLC working hard on fully integrating Request functionality
• Need to accommodate RLFs, campuses with more than one ILS
• Speed!
• Coding, local holdings records (LHRs)

What are LHRs
LHRS will make response time faster

• Summary
• Holdings
• Digital assets

Next Steps for LHRs

• Currently testing LHRs at UCLA, UCD, UCI
• Voyager, Aleph, III
• Plan to automate weekly synch with OCLC

Timetable

• Currently in pilot
• Pilot extended until all outstanding requirements are met by OCLC
• Melvyl not going away just yet; planned phase out
• Look for communication about ramping up this Fall

Testing in fall to test response under loads

Information
University of California

• http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/oclc.html

Next Generation Melvyl at UC--Patricia Martin Presentation

Patricia Martin, Director of Bibliographic Services at CDL, is speaking about the implementation of Next Generation Melvyl at UC.

She begins with a summary of key findings from the 2005 Bibliographic Services Task Force report:

• Focus on what users want--Users care about delivery as much as discovery
• Reduced click streams key, even at expense of good description

In this light, remember that Next Generation Melvyl is meant for end users. Expert searchers, such as librarians, can still use First Search.

Still need to understand user behavior--do people click on something because it's at the top of the list or because it's what they want?

Need to define collections in new ways; print-digital distinction blurring. Also, unique special collections are more widely available.

Embed services where users are, such as learning environments, Web sites, desktops, and other applications.

Meet user needs and solve user problems. Try something, assess it, and change quickly if needed.

We need more Clickstream analysis and eyeball tracking to better understand user behavior.

The Ubiquitous Librarian is a strong proponent of innovative uses of Twitter in libraries. He recently joined staff at UCSB.

Librarians are a distinct class of users; will always have tensions between needs of end users and those of librarians.

Many reasons to partner with OCLC:

• Amazing record base--140 million records, 60 million in queue
• Similar visions/goals/interests
• Chance to leverage investment across institutions

Status of pilot: Melvyl still outpaces WorldCat Local. However, it hasn't fully been promoted and isn't always highly visible on library web pages.

10% of searches return no results at present. Could suggest alternate spellings in future.

Pilot: 10 campus specific views and 1 UC-wide view. Only one ILS represented per campus, which is sometimes a problem.

Interoperability with UC eLinks and Request is crucial; so far better success with UC eLinks than Request, in pilot.

Future task: Mining authority records for recommender services, a la Amazon.

For large record sets, retrieval speed will need to improve. Changes in the works.

Pilot to be extended until all outstanding requirements are met by OCLC--Request, multiple ILS's at one campus, retrieval speed. No firm time for when pilot concludes; "Melvyl not going away just yet."

Patti Martin, CDL Directory of Bibliographic Services

BTSF task Force recommendation
Goals and Strategies
Why pilot with OCLC


Call to Action: The university of California Bibliographic Services Task Force Report, December 2005
http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf

Overarching recommendations

Focus on what users what

• Worldwide pool of information
• Search simplicity
• Immediate satisfaction/delivery
• Quality results
• Web 2.0 tools

Focusing on What users Want
Users expect to cover a wide information universe
Enriched metadata, i.e. TOCs, cover art
Aside: Ubiquitous Librarian - hired recently at UCSB
A survey of undergraduates revealed they would not look at a review without cover art
Full text availablle

Next Generation Discovery/Delivery Strategies
1. Provide strategies geared toward end usrs
2. Define colelction in new ways
3. Embed collections and services where users are
4. Meet user needs and solve user problems, over and over again

For librarians who want more control over search, use OCLC FirstSearch for expert users; WCL focused on undergraduates
People may start with Google but return to catalogs

API: Google Book Search, Quickstart, SCOPUS

40 or more present return more than 500 results
Use author or keyword searching

1. Provide Strategies geared Toward End Users
navigae and managemlarge retreival sets
Intutitive interface, nort simple searching
Wring meaximum value from metadata
Recognize different use cases: broad overivew, in-depth scholary


2. Define Collection in New Ways
* Collections - selected materials that can be accessed in a reasonable period in time
* Distinction beteeen print and digital collections is blurring
* Significance of local ownership is changing
* Unique special collections more boradly available

MELVYL includes more that ten UC campus, with other affiliated libraries?
Does it make sense to have non-UC affiliated libraries in NG Melvyl?

BSTF committee and HOPS to bring to UL meeting about affiliated and non-UC libraries in NGM

Materials available in other libraries; changes in local collections

Special Collections on campus are becoming more widely known

3. Embed Services Where Users Are

• Service and collection packages that live in learning environments, Web sites, desktops, other applications
• Focus on adding value in the target environment
• let users re-package and re-use

4. Meet user needs, solve user problems

• Our close and easy access to faculty and students is enormous untapped asset
• find creative ways to really study user needs
  

Creative ways: Eyeball tracking, weblog analysis, clickstream analysis, sociology of user activiites

Ubiquitous Librarian recommending WCL following Twitter feeds of authors: what they are thinking, what they are doing.

• Look for points of pain, problems, unmet needs
• Know when to teach and when to listen, when to lead and when to follow
• Do it, try it, assess it, change it quickly if needed.
  

Understanding Users and Uses

Just at beginning of working in cloud computing and sharing. On the front step of the frontier.

• Consider how to aggregate for service in the virtual world
• by campus organization
• by academic status 9undergrad, faculty, grad)
• by discipline
• by use (quick answer, broad overview, in depth research)
• by individual
  
• Consider library staff as another class
  

Why OCLC?

• Provide access to global resources as well as campus and ssytemwide resoruces
• Size of database (over 140 Million records, growing at rate of over 10 Million per year - grew over 40 M in 2009)
• Integration of mass digitization output
• Integration of digital assets
• integration of journal article metadata and full text
• similar vision/goals/interests
• opportunity to partner/contribute to research agenda
• leverage investment with peer institutions

Interest in not having a customer-vendor relationship but a partner relationship
Invited to contribute ideas and listened to from both sides.

Questions from the audience

Louise Ratliff: Who are the users?
Calhoun: Users included in the report.
Undergraduates, faculty, expert users, community groups in report.
Librarians: in different roles and locations
Undergraduates more open to user contributed reviews. Faculty preferred authoritative authors to write reviews.

Sally Weimer: What software for the Integrated Library System be loaded?
Calhoun: Software would reside on the network and would not require maintenance on the local sites.

Calhoun - In Conclusion

1. Take collections to a wider audience: be where their eyes are; expose your metadata!
2. Open up metadata silos; support metatdata exchange, reuse, and management
3. Develop user-centered definitions of metadata 'quality'; engage with users as metadata contributors
4. Move metadata management to the cloud.

5. Moving "Into the Cloud"

Moving on to the Grid

YouTube video: What is cloud computing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?y-6PNuQHUiV3q
Web 2.0 Expo with Tim O'Reilly (10 minutes)

How Might OCLC help?

Harness cooperative by enabling libraries to share hardware, services, and data 'in the cloud'
WorldCat Local as a network-level end-user interface

OCLC Cooperative Web-scale Library management Services
OCLC Quick Start services

Web-scale

• Circulation and Delivery
• Print and Electronic Acquisitions
• License management
• Self-configuration (configure workflows for the site)

http://www.oclc.org/productworks/webscale.htm

Interview with Andrew Pace (OCLC) in Library Journal
OCLC’s Andrew Pace Talks with Talis about Web-Scale ILS
Andrew Pace Talks with Talis [00:50:08m]

"To find out about OCLC’s move in to providing hosted, Web-scale, Software as a Service functionality for managing libraries, who better to ask than the person responsible for the programme."

Moving Tech Services to the Cloud: What Would We Need to do Differently?

Incrementally move technical services to the network

Think of selection-ordering

Opening metadata Silos

Metadata Communities for:

Text

• print
• licensed

Digital

• Archival

Data
images
Sound Video
Multimedia
Objects
more

New Models for Creating and Sharing metadata

Crosswalks between data formats

• mapping between technologies
• Shared authority works

Metadata Reuse and Exchange: OCLC Next generation Cataloging

Ingests publisher and vendor metadata in ONIX
Crosswalk to MARC
Enhance publisher metadata
Output MARC records
Output enhanced ONIX format

http://www.oclc.org/partnerships/material/nexgen/nextgencataloging.htm

FY09 objective; Launch Next Generation Cataloging
Working to have process in place by end of OCLC fiscal year 2009