• Like
  • Save
ARLIS Roundtable 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

ARLIS Roundtable 2009

on

  • 1,654 views

Presentation given by Günter Waibel and Dennis Massie at ARLIS 2009.

Presentation given by Günter Waibel and Dennis Massie at ARLIS 2009.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,654
Views on SlideShare
1,654
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

ARLIS Roundtable 2009 ARLIS Roundtable 2009 Presentation Transcript

  • RLG Programs ARLIS Round Table G ünter Waibel, Program Officer Dennis Massie, Program Officer OCLC Research
  • Welcome!
    • 1. Welcome & Slogan of the day (Günter)
    • 2. Print Journals Should they stay or should they go? (Dennis)
    • 3. Museum Data Exchange Will these records play nicely in our sandbox? (Günter)
    • 4. Archival Steering Committee Pushing the acid-free envelope (Dennis)
    • 5. Library, archive and museum collaboration Beyond the Silos of the LAMs (Günter)
    • 6. Round Robin Round-Up! (Amy Lucker, NYU)
    Agenda You eating talking marveling
  • Change we can believe in!
  • Print Journals
    • Should they stay or should they go?
  • Shared Print Collections
    • Four core projects in FY09
      • Journals preservation project – managing risk
      • MARC 583 for print archiving – core infrastructure
      • Regional collection of record – model agreements
      • De-accessioning print working group – shared strategies
    • Advisory Group
      • Shared Print Coordinating Committee – 11 partners
    • Working Groups
      • Prospective Journals Preservation - 9 partners
      • Regional Collection of Record - 4 partners
      • De-accessioning print back-files - 13 partners
    • Future of Collections Discussion Group - 120 partners
  • Outcomes and Impact: FY09
    • Shared Print policy report
      • Synthesized available evidence base for library mgt
    • Prospective journals preservation
      • Modeling cooperative management of at-risk serials
    • Shared infrastructure for distributed mgt
      • Immediately deployable infrastructure supports ‘anonymous’ participation
    • De-acccessioning print backfiles
      •  Identified key obstacles to downsizing redundant holdings
  • Birth of DAP-J
    • Grew out of conversations begun at the RLG Programs Shared Print Collections Summit, November 2007
    • Imagined the path from mostly print collections to mostly digital collections
    • Wondered why more libraries aren’t clearing shelf space by deaccessioning JSTOR print backfiles
    • Or, if this is being done widely, why we don’t hear more about it
    • Asked ourselves: “If not in this situation, when?”
    • Inspired by experience of UKRR: “Just bin it!”
    • Formed group to seek out low-hanging fruit
  • Enter: An Intrepid Band of Fruit Hunters
    • ARL
      • Columbia University
      • Indiana University
      • New York University
      • University of Arizona
      • University of Michigan
    • Medium Academic
      • Binghamton University
    • Liberal Arts College
      • Swarthmore College
    • Museum
      • Brooklyn Museum
      • Frick Collection
      • Metropolitan Museum
      • Museum of Modern Art
    • Special Library
      • U of Pennsylvania Law
    • Legal Depository
      • Trinity College Dublin
  • Some Obstacles to Deaccessioning
    • Legal deposit libraries are very limited in what they can discard
    • Public institutions cannot divest themselves of state assets
    • Law libraries need access to original paper copies for citation checking
    • Cost data for discard vs. store not available when space needed
    • So print journal backfiles moved to offsite storage
    • Where they are now shelved by size
    • So that discarding them has become prohibitively expensive
  • Don’t these collections then become de facto archives? These libraries have made a tacit commitment to keeping these materials. Are there natural groupings of keepers and divestors? Can we build equitable relationships between them?
  • More Obstacles to Deaccessioning
    • We lack the infrastructure to record and disclose retention commitments
    • We lack the network-level policy framework and business model to support keeper-divestor relationships
    • We lack consensus that deaccessioning print journal backfiles is the right thing to do right now
    • Storage is relatively cheap
    • Until that changes it’s easier not to deaccession
  • Two Competing Objectives (per Bob Wolven)
    • Defining conditions that will ensure long-term retention of journal backfiles on a national or international level
      • Or: How can we assure that as libraries cancel print and deaccession backfiles, enough copies will be retained?
    • Defining conditions that will make it easier for libraries to realize the potential space/cost savings from deaccessioning journal backfiles
      • Or: What comfort level is needed for libraries to make these decisions?
  • Groping Toward Linking the Two Objectives
    • First Principles:
      • Action happens locally, for local reasons
      • Group action will begin in already-formed groups of natural partners
    • How to encourage, support, and link up group efforts toward a coherent global picture?
    • How does this relate to the commonly-seen straw man where the few who retain are paid by the many who divest?
  • Even More Obstacles to Deaccessioning
    • We lack confidence:
      • that digital versions will persist
      • that 2 or 3 dark archives are sufficient
      • in validation of dark archives
      • that there is sufficient duplication of print holdings in the network
      • in the condition of non-archived print backfiles
      • that images are of sufficient quality in digital versions
    • It’s hard to throw good stuff away.
  • A Microcosm of the Library Environment?
    • To what extent are you deaccessioning print journal backfiles?
      • 1 routinely, 6 dabbling, 2 have plans, 5 have no plans
    • You have access to the data you need in order to deaccession print journal backfiles with confidence.
      • 1 strongly agree, 6 agree, 3 neutral, 3 disagree
    • We need to seriously rethink processes for print serials check-in.
      • 4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 6 neutral, 1 disagree
    • What is the most important element needed to reconcile the urge to act according to local need with aspirations for building a cooperative future?
      • 3 infrastructure, 6 policy framework, 3 funding, 2 central coordination
  • How To Make a Low-Hanging Fruit Salad
    • Identify core data elements needed in hand in order to make responsible retention or discarding decisions 1
    • Gather the actual data 4
    • Identify sampling tasks to shed light on hard-to-address areas such as validation and optimal duplication 0
    • Actually do the sampling tasks 6
    • Produce a list of obstacles to discarding print backfiles of dual-format journals and how to overcome them 3
    • Decide what level of assurance is “good enough” 1
    • Create a manifesto challenging current thought and behavior regarding shared print 1
    • Implement a deaccessioning project 1
    • Create a decision matrix for various scenarios
  • Journals Preservation Project
    • Risk-aware approach to print preservation: where is cooperative action most needed, most likely to deliver value?
    • ‘At risk’ scholarly journals in the humanities with print-only distribution channel and aggregate WorldCat holdings <50
    • Model costs and workflows for distributed print archiving of long tail print resources
    • 230+ title sample; estimated 10,000 print-only refereed journals
  • Sample and Method
    • 230+ title sample
    • Median holdings per title = 24 libraries
    • Median holdings per title in pilot group = 2
    • Average age of publication = 27 years
    • 42% English language publications
    • Approach
    • Titles assigned for review within project group
    • Coverage and condition of local holdings assessed
    • Commitment to retain/serve or transfer recorded
    • Time to completion noted
  • Preliminary Findings
    • Approx. 40% of titles reviewed are held in their entirety by the assigned institution
    • Approx. 30% of titles are <50% complete at assigned institution
    • Local burden for light-weight validation is relatively modest, approx. 15 minutes/title
    • Pilot participants are prepared to declare archiving commitment for selected titles
    • Relatively low cost of titles makes ongoing acquisitions a low-risk proposition
  • Journals Project - current status
    • 230 assigned for preliminary & secondary review
    • Participating libraries exploring transfer and reassignment of titles for which local preservation commitment is untenable
    • By May : Complete review of initial 230 title sample Compile data on direct costs of validation and continuing subscriptions
    • Extrapolate to model costs for distributed management of entire class (est. 10K titles)
  • Shared Print Priorities for 2009-2010
    • Model costs/benefits of maintaining massively distributed print archives – risk-adjusted business model
      • vs. consolidation in shared storage/distribution centers as with UC-CRL archive
      • Assess ‘retail’ value of print collections in current scholarship
    • Increase exposure of existing print archives in WorldCat – build critical mass to enable change in behaviors
      • JSTOR print archives; monographic holdings at IRLA; UKRR titles
    • Increase international and IRLA participation in Shared Print program – seek global (network) impact
      • UK Research Reserve, Group of Eight
  • Museum Data Exchange
    • Will these records play nicely in our sandbox?
  •  
  •  
  • The Grant Deliverables
    • Analyze Data
    • Interoperability?
    • Standards compliance?
    • Harvest Data
    • Test tools
    • Create Research Aggregation
    • Create Tools
    • Extract CDWA Lite XML records out of Collections Management Systems
    • Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting
  • Create Tools
  • Figure 1: System Architecture proposed for data extraction and publication Source DB (TMS or other) Public OAI CDWA Lite XML Database OAI Repository Application CDWA Lite Work Database Public OAI CDWA Lite XML File System OAI Repository Application Firewall Web Internal Systems Public Systems Data Extraction Tool Mapping Profiles Record Update Hash HTTP SQL SQL SQL File I/O File I/O File I/O JDBC, ODBC, or other Internal CDWA Lite XML File System Data Publishing Tool SQL
  • Cogapp Ltd’s COBOAT
    • COBOAT extracts CDWA Lite XML out of Collections Management Systems http:// www.oclc.org/research/software/coboat/default.htm
    • An existing tool…
      • C ollections O nline B ack O ffice A dministration T ool
      • Deployed by Cogapp in major museums since 2003
      • available fee-free license / use-restricted from Cogapp
    • … with extensions added through the grant…
      • Plug-in to support CDWA Lite XML export
      • Editable configuration files geared towards TMS
      • “ tested against TMS, deployable against any database”
      • available under Apache 2.0 license
  • OCLC Research’s OAICatMuseum 1.0
    • OAICatMuseum publishes the COBOAT extraction to OAI-PMH http://www.oclc.org/research/software/oai/oaicatmuseum.htm
    • OAICatMuseum 1.0
      • based on Jeff Young’s (OCLC Research) OAICat
      • incorporates CDWA Lite XML functionality
      • available under Apache 2.0 license
  • Harvest Data
  • Participants:
    • Original Grant
      • Harvard Art Museum
      • Metropolitan Museum of Art
      • National Gallery of Art
      • Princeton University Art Museum
      • Yale University Art Gallery
      • Cleveland Museum of Art
      • Victoria & Albert Museum (UK)
    • Late additions
      • National Gallery of Canada (CA)
      • Minneapolis Institute of Art
    Using Toolset | Alternative method 850,000 CDWA Lite XML Records
  • Analyze Data
  •  
  • CDWA Lite required fields present? CDWA Lite data elements used by all institutions? CCO compliance of the data? Does controlled vocabulary use support better searching? How consistent is the data? Do queries return meaningful results? Suggest strategies to work around the inevitable inconsistencies in the data
  • From a participating institution…
    • National Gallery of Art: Roger Lawsons’ take
  • Archival Steering Committee
    • Pushing the acid-free envelope
  • Delivering Archives & Special Collections
    • Four core projects emerging for FY10
      • Bringing Web 2.0 technology to bear – empower users
      • Photography and scanning – loosen up policies
      • Rights balancing act – push the envelope
      • Sharing special collections – build trust
    • Steering Committee
      • Delivering Archives & Special Collections Steering Committee – 3 partners
    • Advisory Group
      • Sharing Special Collections - 6 partners
  • The Three “Other” Arch/SpeCol Projects
    • Bringing Web 2.0 technology to bear
      • Why not put up collections for scholars to tag ?
      • Researchers know more about collections than do curators
    • Photography and scanning
      • Reduce policy restrictions and confusion
      • Allow digital cameras in reading rooms
      • Lean toward quick and dirty access copies
    • Rights balancing act
      • Librarians and archivists take conservative view
      • Tend to be over-diligent about observing copyright
      • Users tend to get more restricted access with digital than with analog
  • 4. Sharing Special Collections
    • Building on 2002 RLG Forum , “ Sharing the Wealth ”
    • Controversial then , controversial now
    • Advisory Group: Getty, Emory, Miami, Penn State, Princeton, Minnesota ILL/Access librarians
    • Webinar: Treasures on Trucks and other Taboos
      • Thursday, May 28, 11:00am – 12:30 pm ET
      • Old pro at lending special collections (Emory)
      • Newbie just starting to consider (Miami)
      • Teams of ILL & special collections staff invited
  • Some Questions for Discussion
    • What do you mean by “lending special collections?”
    • Do you do lend? Borrow?
    • Is this crazy? Or an idea whose time has come?
    • Who at your institution decides?
    • How do you build trust? In whom?
    • Is trust and established practice enough?
    • Has scanning lessened demand for seeing the physical object?
    • How will TET’s affect practice?
    • Is it better to integrate with regular ILL work flow or to keep separate?
  • Sharing Special Collections Webinar
    • Treasures on Trucks and other Taboos: Rethinking the Sharing of Special Collections
      • Thursday, May 28, 11:00am – 12:30 pm ET
      • Old pro at lending special collections (Emory)
      • Newbie just starting to consider (Miami)
      • Teams of ILL & special collections staff on panel
      • Teams of ILL & special collections staff invited
      • RLG Programs partner institutions only
  • Library, Archive and Museum Collaboration Beyond the Silos of the LAMs
  • Collaboration Continuum additive transformative ...
  • The Workshops Princeton Smithsonian Victoria & Albert U of Edinburgh Yale
  •  
  • The Collaboration Catalysts
    • Vision
    • Mandate
    • Incentives
    • Change Agents
    • Mooring
    • Resources
    • Flexibility
    • External Catalysts
    • Trust
    Collaboration Stones for Stepping Collaboration Stones for Stepping Collaboration Stones for Stepping
  • Round Robin Round-up!
    • ...with Amy Lucker
  • RLG Round Robin Round-Up April 2009 [images on the following slides have been removed]
  • The Group
    • Total received = 17
      • Museums = 14
      • Academic = 3
  • Administrative – Staff Changes Changes in personnel reported in 12 of 17: including reorgs, promotions Two reported lost positions this year. Two reported added positions (one part-time) this year.
  • Financial Gifts (including gifts in kind) received by 3 Grants received by 8 This year’s budget cut for 6 Current hiring freeze for 3
  • Programs Exhibitions Blogs Internships Researchers Collaborations Wikis Bibliographies Orientations/Tours Training Conferences Publications
  • Facilities Yale moved into new building; Compact shelving @ the National Gallery (US); Guggenheim and SLAM relocated archives; Plans for big moves happening @ National Gallery (Canada), MFA Boston, MFA Houston; Met is planning renovation of book conservation facilities; Everyone is shipping stuff off-site.
  • Technology Website design Meta-tools galore! Recon still goin’ on Digitization projects NYARC joint ILS Archivists’ Toolkit
  • Bonus Question “ more focus on exchange program for acquiring materials” “ Fear and loathing! “  “ fewer acquisitions of primary materials” “ inability to fill vacant positions” “ budget cuts are a huge challenge, but can also be the catalyst for taking more daring and creative approaches to building services and collections” “ budget reduction of at least 25%” “ Concerned” “ Remaining flexible, and creative, in uncertain climate” “ cost-containment measures” “ marked decrease in the publication of exhibition catalogs and auction catalogs” “ eliminating all temporary and casual positions”
  • See you next year – in Boston!