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

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)

Change we can believe in!

Print Journals Should they stay or should they go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Gallery of Art: Roger Lawsons’ take

Archival Steering Committee Pushing the acid-free envelope

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Vision

Mandate

Incentives

Change Agents

Mooring

Resources

Flexibility

External Catalysts

Trust

Round Robin Round-up! ...with Amy Lucker

...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

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!