RLG PartnershipARLIS Roundtableedition 2010<br />Günter Waibel<br />Dennis Massie<br />Program Officers, OCLC Research<br />
eating<br />talking<br />marveling<br />Welcome!<br />Agenda<br />1. Not Enough O’s in Smooth<br />Streamlining the Sharin...
A Word from our Sponsor…<br />2010 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting Chicago<br />Wednesday and Thursday, 9-10 June 2010<br /...
Not Enough O’s in Smooth:Streamlining the Sharing of Special Collections<br />Dennis Massie<br />OCLC Research<br />ARLIS ...
Archives and Special collections work from 10,000 feet<br />Survey on Special Collections and Archives<br />Streamlining P...
Special collections survey<br />275 institutions (some in multiple consortia)<br />ARL (124 U.S. and Canadian research lib...
Are special collections accessible?<br />Backlogs<br />60% have decreased for printed volumes<br />44% have decreased for ...
Are they being used?<br />Use has increased across the board<br />90% for archives/manuscripts<br />75% for visual materia...
10<br />
Streamlining photography and scanning<br />Addressing labor intensive “digitization on demand”<br />Shift work: allow came...
“Treasures on Trucks”: 		ILL of special collections<br />Follow on to “Share the Wealth” in 2002<br />ILL practitioners, s...
What we talk about when we talk about…<br />Sharing:  making material accessible to users external to your institution, wh...
Barking Our Shins: Not Enough O’s in Ouch?<br />Work flow issues<br />Who fields requests?<br />Who decides?<br />How many...
15<br />
Sharing Special Collections Advisory Group<br />Creating<br />Aimee Lind, Getty<br />Barbara Coopey, Penn State<br />Eliza...
How to make a sharing special collections smoothie<br />Survey on current work flow (May)<br />What’s working<br />What’s ...
Undue Diligence<br />An event:<br />March 11th 2010, San Mateo CA<br />Studio-audience plus Webcast<br />Twitter:<br />A m...
Librarians and archivists often make extremely conservative assumptions about the risk involved in copying unpublished mat...
The Manifesto<br />Select Collections Wisely<br />E.g. Assess strength and weaknesses of relying on fair use<br />Use arch...
Here to witness:<br />Dennis Massie<br />Kathleen Salomon, Getty Research Institute<br />
“Sky’s the Limit” or “Sky is Falling”Will the Real “Cloud Library” Please Stand Up?<br />Dennis Massie<br />Program Office...
Moving Collections to the Cloud<br />Premise:  emergence of large scale shared print and digital repositories creates oppo...
Enable reallocation of institutional resources
Model new business relationships among libraries</li></ul>* increased reliance on external infrastructure and service plat...
Academic off-site storage<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<b...
Methodology<br /><ul><li>Monthly harvest of metadata from HathiTrust repository
Mapped to WorldCat bibliographic and holdings data
Selectively enhanced to increased coverage of physical storage collections
Iterative analysis at title level including
Subject distribution (scholarly audience)
Copyright status (availability)
Distribution in print format (opportunity for rationalization)</li></li></ul><li>What’s in the cloud?<br />Based on analys...
Key Findings<br /><ul><li>Scope of mass-digitized corpus in Hathi is already sufficient to replace at least 20-30% of most...
Ratio of replaceable inventory independent of collection size
Most content also held in trusted print repositories with preservation and access services (CRL, UC Regional Library Facil...
Distribution of resource still suboptimal for shared service model
If limited to titles in the public domain, shared service offering may not be sufficient to mobilize significant resources
Fewer titles, smaller audience: demand is low</li></li></ul><li>Scope of opportunity<br />~700K titles in sample ARL Lib r...
Shared print provision<br />~25% of ARL lib titles in Hathialso in sample Storage<br />Shared<br />Storage<br />ARL lib ti...
Beyond shared storage<br />800,000<br />700,000<br />600,000<br />500,000<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi<br />400,000<br />....
Optimizing resource distribution<br />800,000<br />50,000<br />45,000<br />700,000<br />40,000<br />600,000<br />35,000<br...
How much change is needed?<br />If library space savings are the primary objective, a shared print solution for public dom...
Art and Architecture in Hathi<br />As of February 2010:<br />4% of Hathi consists of titles on art and architecture (122K)...
What now?<br />Analyze DataStandards compliance?Interoperability?<br />Harvest DataTest toolsCreate Research Aggregation<b...
Research Aggregation<br />9 Museums<br />887,572 Records <br />
Conformance to CDWA Lite<br />90% consistency for 7 of 17 elements <br />Records<br />Required/Highly recommended elements...
Controlled Vocabularies<br />match rates<br />< 42% <br />
Data Values correlated to records<br />99%<br />No AAT Match73<br />73%<br />AAT Match27<br />Top 100<objectWorkType><br /...
publishing your collections<br />
reachinghigher education<br />
sharing infrastructure<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ARLIS 2010 RLG Partnership Round Table

1,757 views

Published on

An update to the art library community about OCLC Research activities, including:
Streamlining the Sharing of Special Collections
Undue Diligence
Cloud Library
Museum Data Exchange

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,757
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “Buffet Open”, “Liquor Locker” and “Library” by Jeremy BrooksSo we all know why most of you are here. [click] We just hope that we don’t have to provide an open bar to get you all to stay [click]. Let’s just keep in mind that this is all about [click] the library, and how to move it into the neon-lighted 21st century.
  • Welcome to this year’s edition of the RLG Partnerships ARLIS Roundtable. As you know, apart from the food, we always try to present you with some appetizing topics to sink your teeth into. This year is no different, and here they are. We’ll start off with “Not Enough O’s in Smooth”, and who couldn’t use a “make-over for your emotional entanglements” once in a while. We’ll stir in some paranoia about the capriciousness of the heavens with “Sky’s the Limit or Sky is Falling”, and then we’ll come back to my favorite topic since kindergarten: “Still learning how to Share”.Actually, there’s more to it than that… [click]We’ll follow the precedence set last year: at first, eating dominates, then talking gradually takes over. [click]But there’s even more…[click]Please treat our special guests with the respect they deserve – Dennis and I are fair game, but I draw the line with Jason and Amy.
  • [10 minutes]Undue Diligence started its life as an event. On March 11th 2010, people gathered in person and on a Webcast to seek low-risk strategies for making collections of unpublished materials more accessible. [click] Here you see the intrepid cast of presenters, five of which performed live in front of the studio audience, and one of which called in over the phone. The event provoked some unusually clever tweeting, and since that’ll give you a good flavor of the event, let me share some tweets with you. [click, click, click]. During the final session of the event, participants live-edited a strawman titled “Well-intentioned practicefor putting digitized collections of unpublished materials online”. The results of this community process is now up on our website at [click] http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/rights/practice.pdf.Since this screen can’t possibly get any more cluttered, let me start over. [click]
  • Here’s the premise the event was built on, or the situation we were trying to intervene in, if you will. If you agree with a statement please raise your hand.
  • This first project you’ll be hearing about is known among its participants as The Cloud Library Project. Sounds kind of dreamy, doesn’t it?
  • This project is about modeling a new set of business relationships within the library community. Its goal was to assess the risks and benefits of “cloud sourcing”collection management activity. Let’s say there’s a huge digital repository to which I have not contributed, and an enormous shared print facility that doesn’t house any of my material. How can I leverage the contents of those two aggregations to make radically different kinds of decisions about my own library’s collections? What service agreement would need to be in place? What would such an arrangement be worth to me? What risks are involved if I start discarding things because I have access to theirs? And what do the repositories get out of all this? For years we’ve seen increased externalization of library operations that used to be core, internal functions. Cooperative cataloging is a key example. In this project, we wanted to push the envelope and create opportunities for externalizing collection management practices, which have been resistant to this kind of outsourcing.This project is funded by Mellon and was actually hatched by the directors of several of the participating institutions. They approached OCLC Research to conduct a data mining exercise and assess the opportunity and risk. It’s the job of the participating institutions to draft a model service agreement and document the new business relationship that would be required for this kind of outsourcing arrangement to work.The HathiTrust is the digital repository we looked at, plus a print storage facility shared by three research libraries, plus a typical ARL library that has not contributed content to either aggregation. The principle operative for OCLC Research has been Constance Malpas. The only reason she’s not here speaking to you today about her outstanding work on this project is because she’s off being indispensible elsewhere.
  • The data analysis, performed by my colleagues Constance Malpas and Roy Tennant, was an incredibly involved and labor-intensive affair. The short version is that on a monthly schedule they harvested all themetadata from the entire Hathi Repository, matched it to WorldCat, did some additional enhancement such as subject tagging, then analyzed it. They did this over and over again from July though February and produced a project database of over 17 million records. Some – I don’t think Roy and Constance would, but some -- might say that the number crunching was the easy part, because it’s all about facts and data. The folks at the institutions that are the objects of the study probably have the most difficult task: looking at the data and analysis and then deciding what all this might actually mean to their future library operations.
  • After nine months, we can see some patterns emerging and draw some conclusions. If libraries were prepared to act on a digital preservation guarantee alone from Hathi, North American academic libraries could achieve a reduction of 20-30% of the local book inventory. But, of course, until a mechanism exists for providing access to digital material that is in-copyright, knowing that a title is being preserved in Hathi is not enough to allow you to discard your copy. If one adds the expectation of needing an access copy in a particular shared print archive before discarding yours, the potential for reducing the local book collection is cut in half – only 5-15%. If you have access to many shared print archives that happen to complement each other’s collections, your chances are better. But where’s the efficiency in that?Particularly disappointing is the small proportion of public domain materials contained across all the collections. Obviously, there would not be much demand from potential customers of the repositories for this category of materials.
  • Access to in-copyright material is key, and these days that means print. Only about a quarter of the titles held by our sample ARL library that are also in Hathi are ALSO duplicated within our representative shared print storage facility. Unsurprisingly, public domain titles represent a small fraction of the duplicated content. Interestingly, other shared print facilities can yield different results. For instance, we found that the University of California Regional Library Facilities, housing 11 million items, can provide preservation and access for about 50% of our ARL library’s titles in Hathi – the equivalent about 20,000 linear feet of shelving. So – in this case, bigger is better.
  • It’s striking what happens to the size of the opportunity if we rethink our original assumptions and include the entire collection of one of our three shared print storage partners. Here we look at all of Partner A’s holdings, everything they placed in storage, plus everything on campus. The potential for space savings at our sample ARL library would be about 3X what it would be if limited to all what the three partner libraries put in the shared storage facility.
  • Finally, we considered the collective collection of all three storage partner libraries as a potential basis for a shared print agreement. The value of such an agreement would be substantially greater than one limited to titles currently in storage; in fact, nearly every one of our sample ARL library’s titles in Hathi could be covered by such an agreement. So maybe, as originally conceived, the project was handcuffed by an insistence on including a print counterpart to Hathi – a shared print storage facility. The numbers say that by considering entire collections across several institutions as one big virtual collection, most of the project’s original aims could be accomplished on a grand scale. Doesn’t THAT sound dreamy?
  • Project participants will need to look at the data, apply it to their own situations, and decide how, or if, to act. The public domain portion seems like a nice, useful, low-risk bit of work, for instance. If the community wants a network of shared print repositories offering services into which consumers can plug their libraries, that’s going to take some system -wide collaboration and some new thinking.If libraries want to aggressively pursue the most attractive opportunities touched upon by this project, and really transform the kinds of services they can offer their users, a major reorganization of the whole library system will be required. For now, though, the rights issues surrounding the provision of digital access to in-copyright material is an enormous roadblock. Until that gets resolved in the courts, the real promise of the Cloud Library will remain unrealized. At least we now know precisely the size and shape of the opportunity that awaits, which is in itself a great leap forward.
  • [5 minutes]
  • [10 minutes]
  • ARLIS 2010 RLG Partnership Round Table

    1. 1. RLG PartnershipARLIS Roundtableedition 2010<br />Günter Waibel<br />Dennis Massie<br />Program Officers, OCLC Research<br />
    2. 2.
    3. 3. eating<br />talking<br />marveling<br />Welcome!<br />Agenda<br />1. Not Enough O’s in Smooth<br />Streamlining the Sharing of Special Collections (Dennis)<br />2. An attitude make-over for your emotional entanglement<br />Undue Diligence (Günter, Dennis & Kathleen Salomon, GRI)<br />3 “Sky’s the Limit” or “Sky is Falling”<br />Will the Real “Cloud Library” Please Stand Up? (Dennis)<br />4. Still Learning how to Share<br />Museum Data Exchange (Günter)<br />Special Guest: Jason Lee (Metadata Coordinator, WorldCat Digital Content, OCLC) on the Digital Collection Gateway<br />Round Robin Round Up (Amy Lucker, better known as our President)<br />You<br />
    4. 4. A Word from our Sponsor…<br />2010 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting Chicago<br />Wednesday and Thursday, 9-10 June 2010<br />“When the Books Leave the Building: The Future of Research Libraries, Collections and Services”<br />Symposium at the Newberry Library, Friday, 11 June 2010<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2010-06-09.htm<br />Collaboration Forum<br />Created by the RLG Partnership, hosted by the Smithsonian<br />Monday and Tuesday, 20-21 September<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2010-09-20.htm<br />
    5. 5. Not Enough O’s in Smooth:Streamlining the Sharing of Special Collections<br />Dennis Massie<br />OCLC Research<br />ARLIS Boston 2010<br />
    6. 6. Archives and Special collections work from 10,000 feet<br />Survey on Special Collections and Archives<br />Streamlining Photography and Scanning<br />Sharing Special Collections<br />
    7. 7. Special collections survey<br />275 institutions (some in multiple consortia)<br />ARL (124 U.S. and Canadian research libraries)<br />CARL (30 Canadian academic/research libraries)<br />IRLA (20 independent research libraries)<br />Oberlin (80 liberal arts colleges)<br />RLG Partnership (85 university libraries, independent research libraries, museums, historical societies, et al. in U.S. and Canada)<br />180 responses (67%) … and counting.<br />
    8. 8. Are special collections accessible?<br />Backlogs<br />60% have decreased for printed volumes<br />44% have decreased for other formats<br />Online catalog records<br />84% of printed volumes (ARL ‘98: 73%)<br />57% of archives/manuscripts (ARL ‘98: 46%)<br />Archival management<br />45% of finding aids online (ARL ‘98: 16%)<br />65% use EAD<br />55% do some minimal processing (MPLP)<br />
    9. 9. Are they being used?<br />Use has increased across the board<br />90% for archives/manuscripts<br />75% for visual materials<br />50% for other formats<br />Public services policies enable use<br />Digital camera use is permitted (86%)<br />Uncataloged materials can be used (92% for archives)<br />Institutional blogs are popular (46%)<br />Flickr, Facebook, Wikipedia links heighten visibility<br />Some offer research fellowships (32%)<br />
    10. 10. 10<br />
    11. 11. Streamlining photography and scanning<br />Addressing labor intensive “digitization on demand”<br />Shift work: allow cameras in the reading room<br />Published report: “Capture and Release: Digital Cameras in the Reading Room”<br />Guidelines and best practices for creating efficiencies when an institution does digitize<br />Forthcoming report: “Scan and Deliver: License to Just Get the Job Done”<br />
    12. 12. “Treasures on Trucks”: ILL of special collections<br />Follow on to “Share the Wealth” in 2002<br />ILL practitioners, special collections staff<br />Renewed interest due to increased discoverability of collections<br />Working group activities<br />Webinars <br />Getting on the same page: create a glossary<br />Streamline work flows<br />How to establish trust<br />Making the case that sharing is essential<br />
    13. 13. What we talk about when we talk about…<br />Sharing: making material accessible to users external to your institution, whether by placing it on the Web, sending a digital or physical surrogate, or lending the physical item itself.<br />Special: any material held in a special collection or archive.<br />Collections: any material to which your library’s patrons have access via affiliation with your institution, whether via ownership, subscription, or cooperative agreement.<br />
    14. 14. Barking Our Shins: Not Enough O’s in Ouch?<br />Work flow issues<br />Who fields requests?<br />Who decides?<br />How many sets of hands?<br />Can one size fit all?<br />Do requesters understand what they’re asking for?<br />Trust issues<br />Personal knowledge necessary?<br />Facilities checklist?<br />What’s the tipping point?<br />How best to document trust for community?<br />Role for trusted intermediaries?<br />
    15. 15. 15<br />
    16. 16. Sharing Special Collections Advisory Group<br />Creating<br />Aimee Lind, Getty<br />Barbara Coopey, Penn State<br />Elizabeth Nielsen, Oregon State<br />Laura Carroll, Emory<br />Jennifer Block, Princeton<br />Sandra Stelts, Penn State<br />Scott Britton, U of Miami<br />Reviewing<br />Cristina Favretto, U of Miami<br />Eleanor Brown, Cornell<br />Margaret Ellingon, Emory<br />Paul Constantine, U of Washington<br />Shannon Supple, UC Berkeley<br />Sue Hallgren, U of Minnesota<br />
    17. 17. How to make a sharing special collections smoothie<br />Survey on current work flow (May)<br />What’s working<br />What’s rocking<br />What’s smelling slightly unfresh<br />Analyze results (June)<br />Develop recommendations (Summer)<br />Issue a report (Fall)<br />Working closely with the RBMS task force<br />
    18. 18. Undue Diligence<br />An event:<br />March 11th 2010, San Mateo CA<br />Studio-audience plus Webcast<br />Twitter:<br />A manifesto:<br />“if privacy torts were a stock, their performance over the last century would not be deemed impressive.”<br />“Fair use is a tough wagon to get a ride on”<br />“…on a tightrope balancing <br />precaution and production”<br />Sharon Farb (UCLA), Rebekah Irwin (Yale), Maggie Dickson (North Carolina State U), Aprille McKay (U of Michigan), Peter Hirtle (Cornell) & Georgia Harper (U of Texas)<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/rights/practice.pdf<br />
    19. 19. Librarians and archivists often make extremely conservative assumptions about the risk involved in copying unpublished materials.<br />Many institutions have time-consuming, overly-cautious procedures to ensure vigorous compliance with copyright law—sometimes without a full understanding of the law or of the negative impact their procedures have on achieving their mission.<br />The result constrains research and limits what should be entering the scholarly record.<br />The digital age has induced still more caution, creating the ironic situation where, just when users ought to be getting improved access, they're not even getting as good access as they could through interlibrary loan, in-person visits, and analog copying.<br />If access is the goal, then any unnecessary restriction is counterproductive. <br />
    20. 20. The Manifesto<br />Select Collections Wisely<br />E.g. Assess strength and weaknesses of relying on fair use<br />Use archival approaches to make decisions<br />E.g. Identify the appropriate level at which to assess rights and privacy (collection / series)<br />Include take-down policy statements and disclaimers<br />[language suggested in the document]<br />Prospectively, work with donors<br />E.g. ask donor to transfer copyright to the institution, licence under CC, or release materials into public domain<br />
    21. 21. Here to witness:<br />Dennis Massie<br />Kathleen Salomon, Getty Research Institute<br />
    22. 22. “Sky’s the Limit” or “Sky is Falling”Will the Real “Cloud Library” Please Stand Up?<br />Dennis Massie<br />Program Officer<br />massied@oclc.org<br />RLG Round Table<br />24 April 2010<br />
    23. 23. Moving Collections to the Cloud<br />Premise: emergence of large scale shared print and digital repositories creates opportunity for strategic externalization*of core library operations<br /><ul><li>Reduce costs of preserving scholarly record
    24. 24. Enable reallocation of institutional resources
    25. 25. Model new business relationships among libraries</li></ul>* increased reliance on external infrastructure and service platforms in response to economic imperative (lower transaction costs)<br />
    26. 26. Academic off-site storage<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />1010101010101<br />0101010101010<br />15 months <br />+5M vols.<br />25 years<br />+70M vols.<br />Shared Infrastructure: Books & Bits<br />HathiTrust<br />Will this intersection create new operational efficiencies? <br /> For which libraries?<br /> Under what conditions?<br /> How soon and with what impact?<br />
    27. 27. Methodology<br /><ul><li>Monthly harvest of metadata from HathiTrust repository
    28. 28. Mapped to WorldCat bibliographic and holdings data
    29. 29. Selectively enhanced to increased coverage of physical storage collections
    30. 30. Iterative analysis at title level including
    31. 31. Subject distribution (scholarly audience)
    32. 32. Copyright status (availability)
    33. 33. Distribution in print format (opportunity for rationalization)</li></li></ul><li>What’s in the cloud?<br />Based on analysis of titles in Hathi archive:<br /><ul><li>5.3 million volumes; 3.2 million titles</li></ul>97% books; 3% serials<br /> 88% of titles in copyright; 12% public domain<br /> 50% English (389 languages represented)<br />70% of titles archived in Hathi are also held in print form by at least one large-scale shared print repository<br />48% of archived titles are held by fewer than 25 libraries<br />* * * *<br />
    34. 34. Key Findings<br /><ul><li>Scope of mass-digitized corpus in Hathi is already sufficient to replace at least 20-30% of most academic print collections
    35. 35. Ratio of replaceable inventory independent of collection size
    36. 36. Most content also held in trusted print repositories with preservation and access services (CRL, UC Regional Library Facilities, ReCAP, Library of Congress)
    37. 37. Distribution of resource still suboptimal for shared service model
    38. 38. If limited to titles in the public domain, shared service offering may not be sufficient to mobilize significant resources
    39. 39. Fewer titles, smaller audience: demand is low</li></li></ul><li>Scope of opportunity<br />~700K titles in sample ARL Lib replicated in Hathi<br />800,000<br />50,000<br />45,000<br />700,000<br />40,000<br />600,000<br />35,000<br />500,000<br />30,000<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi<br />Titles<br />Linear Ft<br />400,000<br />25,000<br />Public domain<br />20,000<br />300,000<br />15,000<br />200,000<br />10,000<br />100,000<br /><10% in public domain<br />5,000<br />0<br />0<br />Jul-09<br />Sep-09<br />Oct-09<br />Feb-10<br />Aug-09<br />Jun-09<br />Dec-09<br />Jan-10<br />Nov-09<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
    40. 40. Shared print provision<br />~25% of ARL lib titles in Hathialso in sample Storage<br />Shared<br />Storage<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi<br />… & in Shared Storage<br />… & public domain<br />~2% are public domain<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
    41. 41. Beyond shared storage<br />800,000<br />700,000<br />600,000<br />500,000<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi<br />400,000<br />... & Storage Partner A<br /> Libraries<br />300,000<br />200,000<br />100,000<br />0<br />Jul-09<br />Sep-09<br />Oct-09<br />Jun-09<br />Aug-09<br />Dec-09<br />Jan-10<br />Nov-09<br />~75% of ARL lib titles in Hathialso held in Storage “Partner A” Libraries<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
    42. 42. Optimizing resource distribution<br />800,000<br />50,000<br />45,000<br />700,000<br />40,000<br />600,000<br />35,000<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi<br />500,000<br />30,000<br />Titles<br />Linear Feet<br />400,000<br />25,000<br />ARL lib titles in Hathi &<br />Shared Storage libraries<br />20,000<br />300,000<br />15,000<br />200,000<br />10,000<br />100,000<br />5,000<br />0<br />0<br />Jul-09<br />Jun-09<br />Jan-10<br />Nov-09<br />Aug-09<br />Sep-09<br />Dec-09<br />Feb-10<br />Oct-09<br />~90% of our ARL lib titles in Hathiheld in sample Shared Storage Libraries<br />Data current as of February 2010<br />
    43. 43. How much change is needed?<br />If library space savings are the primary objective, a shared print solution for public domain titles can enable a modest reduction in redundant inventory at very low risk<br />Impact will be local; operational change minimal<br />If optimization of regional print holdings is the end-game, shared storage collections will need to be rationalized and the service model revised to support a broader range of consumers (beyond our ARL library)<br />Economy of scale will require new business model<br />If a significant renovation of the academic library service portfolio is desired, a more aggressive externalization of collection management functions will be needed; disruptive re-organization of library system<br />Mobilize collective resources; maximize reliance on shared infrastructure<br />
    44. 44. Art and Architecture in Hathi<br />As of February 2010:<br />4% of Hathi consists of titles on art and architecture (122K)<br />5% of these are in the public domain (6,676)<br />Lower than overall Hathi average<br />More print redundancy needed for these titles?<br />On the other hand…<br />32% of A&A titles in Hathi held by >100 libraries<br />Enough redundancy to enable some reduction in holdings?<br />Any obvious candidates for print archiving institutions for art and architecture?<br />
    45. 45. What now?<br />Analyze DataStandards compliance?Interoperability?<br />Harvest DataTest toolsCreate Research Aggregation<br />Create ToolsExtract CDWA Lite XMLPublish via OAI-PMH<br />Museum Data Exchange<br />Harvard University Art Museums<br />Metropolitan Museum of Art<br />National Gallery of Art<br />Princeton University Art Museum<br />Yale University Art Gallery<br />Cleveland Museum of Art<br />Victoria & Albert Museum (UK)<br />National Gallery of Canada (CA)<br />Minneapolis Institute of Art<br />funded by Andrew W. Mellon Foundation<br />
    46. 46. Research Aggregation<br />9 Museums<br />887,572 Records <br />
    47. 47. Conformance to CDWA Lite<br />90% consistency for 7 of 17 elements <br />Records<br />Required/Highly recommended elements<br />
    48. 48. Controlled Vocabularies<br />match rates<br />< 42% <br />
    49. 49. Data Values correlated to records<br />99%<br />No AAT Match73<br />73%<br />AAT Match27<br />Top 100<objectWorkType><br />All the Institution’s 100K+ Records<br />
    50. 50. publishing your collections<br />
    51. 51. reachinghigher education<br />
    52. 52. sharing infrastructure<br />
    53. 53. Museum Data Exchange Resources<br />Thanks also to my colleagues and collaborators Bruce Washburn and Ralph LeVan.<br />MDE Outcomes<br />In full:<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-02.pdf<br />In somewhat briefer:<br />http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march10/waibel/03waibel.html<br />OAICatMuseum 1.0<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/oaicatmuseum/default.htm<br />COBOAT<br />http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/coboat/default.htm<br />
    54. 54. Special Guest: Jason Lee<br />Metadata Coordinator, WorldCat Digital Content<br />
    55. 55. Round Robin Round-up!<br />With Amy Lucker, NYU<br />
    56. 56. The RLG Round Robin Round Up – 2010 Season<br />
    57. 57. WHO ARE YOU??<br />Museum/Collection: 20<br />Academic: 15<br />Other: 2<br />RLG MEMBER: 51%<br />NOT: 49%<br />
    58. 58. Administrative changes<br />Loss of positions through attrition (11)<br />Loss of positions through layoffs (11)<br />Restructuring/reorgs (15)<br />Changes in staff (9)<br />
    59. 59. PROGRAMS<br />Only one mentioned doing less, 31 mentioned hugely active programs including: fellowships, internships, a radio program, many exhibitions, lectures, symposia, and publications.<br />
    60. 60. FACILITIES<br />Mostly no changes; some space planning, small renovations.<br />
    61. 61. TECHNOLOGY<br />ContentDM<br />Archivists’ Toolkit<br />Social Media<br />Website renovations (16)<br />Digitization projects (11)<br />OPAC/System upgrades<br />Recon<br />
    62. 62. FUNDING<br />Cuts (26)<br />Grants/Gifts (10)<br />
    63. 63. Important Issues<br />Resource sharing (16)<br />All things digital (11)<br />Marketing/Strategic transformation (6)<br />
    64. 64. See you next year!<br />

    ×