Minutes of the November 1, 2007 Meeting

SML 409
2:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Present: Hannah Bennett, Gwyneth Crowley, Jo-Anne Giammattei, Graziano Krätli, Haruko Nakamura (Chair), Ann Okerson, Kimberly Parker, Susanne Roberts, Andrew Shimp, Paul Stuehrenberg.

Absent: George Miles, Audrey Novak, Marcia Romananski, Martha Smalley, David Walls, Dorothy Woodson.

Guests: Carol Jones (Head, Document Delivery).

Recorder: Graziano Krätli.

I. Announcements, questions, future agenda items

There were no announcements, questions, or future agenda items.

II. Update on ILL/Borrow Direct statistic reports (Carol Jones)

Carol reminded the group that Borrow Direct (BD) uses a software that is very old and clunky, although rather simple to use in order to process requests and perform regular administrative tasks. Originated ten years ago in Australia, it changed owners four or five times and is currently owned by a British company. Due to its considerable age (by software standards), the risk of a sudden debacle is real and Carol does not rule out the possibility of coming to work one day and finding that BD just doesn’t function anymore. At the beginning of 2007, when the length of the ISBN (International Standard Book Number) officially changed from 10 to 13 digits, there were some concerns about BD’s capability of handling the new numbers, but Jeffrey Barnett (Senior Research Analysts) was able to fix it.

Currently, the loan period is 30 days, with a grace period of 5 days and no renewal option. It has been recently agreed to extend it to 42 days, or six weeks, in the hope that the longer period will reduce the number of overdue books and the requests for renewal (which patrons will submit in spite of the rules). Borrow Direct’s inability to renew a loan is a software-related issue. The next extended loan period will be the object of an official announcement, probably at the beginning of the next semester.

Based on BD report data, Yale currently borrows more than it lends. This, pointed out Sue Roberts (Librarian for European History, Coordinator of Humanities Collections), is contrary to expectations. Carol Jones confirmed that it is also contrary to historical data. For the first three years of Borrow Direct, the participating libraries were only three – Cornell, University of Pennsylvania and Yale – and until a couple of years ago Yale was always a net lender (as it still is in regard to Interlibrary Loans). The University of Pennsylvania was a big net borrower and Cornell a net lender. The reversal of the situation over the last two years has had significant consequences for the Interlibrary Loan service.

Hannah Bennett (Public Services Librarian and Assistant Director, Arts Library) pointed out that a large number of patrons use Borrow Direct to check out art books that they cannot obtain from the Arts Library. Three out of the five Arts libraries and collections have very limited circulation policies: The Art & Architecture Library allows students and staff to check out one book at a time for one day and faculty to check out up to 5 books at a time for one week, while the Arts of the Book and Classics Library collections are non-circulating.

Such limitations, however, cannot be entirely responsible for Yale’s recent switch from being a net lender to being a net borrower, and Ann Okerson (Associate University Librarian for Collections and International Programs) wondered if there may be other reasons. Aren't we buying enough books?

Carol explained that one of the guiding principles of Borrow Direct (and one that she believes was originally formulated by former University Librarian Scott Bennett) was to envision the service as an additional library on campus, although one not physically available. One of the advantages of BD was to cut down on multiple copies. However, Bass still has duplicates; its books are not offered through Borrow Direct; and its loan terms are significantly shorter that those of Borrow Direct. As a matter of fact, BD has currently a longer loan term than most titles in the Bass Library. Sue Roberts pointed out that other BD member libraries must have a similar limitation, restrictions, and exclusions.

Yale's net lending deficit raised the issue of whether there is a way to mine BD data and see what titles are most heavily borrowed. Carol circulated a printout with instructions provided by the BD Manager at the University of Pennsylvania on how to access the BD Data Farm Repository and generate reports pertaining to Yale. Data are available from 2000 on and will be exported to an Excel spreadsheet.

Ann asked for an update on plans to upgrade or replace the current BD software. A first, very productive meeting was followed by a second, highly disappointing one with OCLC representatives during the ALA Midwinter meeting in Seattle in January 2007. A month later, though, Columbia University staff had another meeting with OCLC people and their software providers (a British company), who made a very interesting presentation. Then everything languished again, until a group of document delivery / ILL librarians revived the proposal during the ALA annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last June. Moreover, in the past couple of weeks Danuta Niteki (Associate University Librarian for Public Services) and her peers put some steam behind this revamped proposal, so that now a replacement looks more likely than six months ago. How soon it will occur, though, it is difficult to say, but certainly not during current academic year.

Andy Shimp (Engineering Librarian) asked whether the new BD software would allow article-level searches. Carol replied that the idea generated some interest, since other consortia provide a similar service. One such consortium (to which Yale does not belong) is RAPID (Rapid Access Processing & Information Delivery), a resource sharing system originally designed and directed by the interlibrary loan department at Colorado State University Libraries. Built on a relational database of the journal titles and holdings of the member libraries, it is predicated on a 24-hour turnaround time service commitment by all participants. These are currently over 100, mostly in the U.S. (the international component is represented by a few Chinese institutions), and include most ARL / BD libraries. It covers all subject areas and there is no service fee. CDC members held a brief discussion on the potential benefits of membership. According to Andy, Yale would not be a big user of this service, since the Library is already able to meet electronically almost all user needs. Ann wondered if Yale's participation in a consortium like RAPID would result in significant changes for the Document Delivery department. Carol agreed it would reduce the amount of time needed to process requests, as well as the number of articles currently requested through the ILL service.

Andy asked if there are any indications that ILLiad (an interlibrary loan product developed in the ILL Department at Virginia Tech and currently supported by OCLC) would accept a Yale ID instead of creating a new one. Carol explained that Michael Friscia, a System Programmer in the ILTS department, looked into this issue. However, ILLiad contains many tables and offers 4-5 patron identifications, which means that patron information needs to be refreshed nightly. This would require more work than what ILTS could support. However, the Medical Library expressed high interest and we will continue asking for this, since a Net ID is the logical form of access.

III. Implementation of policy on handling of controversial books (Graziano Krätli)

Graziano (International Program Support Librarian) distributed a "Draft Policy on Requests for Destruction, Return, or Removal of Materials from the Collection or Circulation," which he produced in response to discussion at the September meeting (see item #III in the meeting minutes, "Yale Library policy on handling of withdrawn and controversial books.")

The draft anchors the Library position – and resulting policy – firmly in the mold of a few specific statements and guidelines implemented by professional organizations such as ALA and IFLA, namely the Freedom to Read Statement, the Library Bill of Right, and the Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries, which are referred to as well as partially quoted in the document.

After highlighting the key points and the sources used in the draft, Graziano mentioned that it refers only to materials the Library owns, while similar policies implemented by other institutions (e.g., Cornell) include also "publications that the Library is storing and making accessible but does not technically own (as sometimes happens, for example, with government documents)." Another category of materials not currently dealt with in the draft are those, especially in electronic format, that are licensed rather than owned.

The need for such a policy was prompted by a recent case in which Cambridge University Press requested that nearly 300 libraries around the world should destroy or return a copy of one of their books (Alms for Jihad) after it proved highly controversial. However, Kimberly Parker mentioned reading a license agreement in which the publisher claimed the right to have content removed from materials it was selling to the Library. This preventive approach could become increasingly popular among content providers as a consequence of the Alms for Jihad case.

The final paragraph in the draft, dealing with gifts, prompted Haruko to remind the group of the Library’s gift policy, which needs to be reviewed and updated. This had been mentioned at a previous CDC meeting, but the issue remains to be addressed. A future agenda item could be the way to address it.

In conclusion, Ann asked the Council to express their opinion upon the need to publish a document like the one devised in the draft.

IV. Purchasing of microform medium (Sue Roberts, 15 min.)

An alternative and more creative title for this item, Sue Roberts pointed out, would be "Microform in the Digital Age: To Buy—or Bypass?" In this electronic day and age, does it still make sense to purchase large microfilm sets, knowing that their source materials may be digitized soon? Given that in the last five years we have seen a significant increase in digitized materials, much of which the Library already has on microfilm, it is natural to wonder whether we should buy or wait; or what to buy in the older format and why. The question is further complicated by the fact that publishers who sell microfilm promise not to digitize the same materials, while instead they should offer a free copy of the digitized version, or a significant discount on its price.

The question whether to buy or wait can be partially answered by looking at the collection strengths, at the availability (or not) of specific materials in digital format, and at the demand materials generate for teaching and research purposes.

It is often difficult to strike a fine balance between the importance and the usefulness of the materials available on microfilm and the demand they generate. Sue mentioned that recently a student asked Greg Eow (Kaplanoff Librarian for American History) to buy the entire set of an obscure Memphis newspaper costing about $100,000. Foreign newspapers, particularly those from developing countries, are generally microfilmed at a lower pace (if at all), and title by title rather than in aggregated packages. And even if they will be digitized one day, who can say how soon this will happen, and how complete and accurate the results will be? Cooperative acquisition of foreign and domestic materials is made possible by the Center for Research Libraries through its Shared Purchase Program. This, however, requires proposals to be nominated and approved; approval criteria are based on the Center's collection scope (which, in the case of U.S. newspapers, is limited to ethnic press); and, last but not least, their total acquisition budget of $120,000 will not pay for many microfilm sets (even if cheaper than the Memphis title mentioned above).

Julie Linden (Government Information Librarian, Social Science Libraries), joining the meeting to talk about government documents, said that entire sets of records from specific agencies have not been digitized yet, and it is difficult to say if and when they will be. These include sets of presidential papers and other government records, such as those related to the foreign affairs of the Nixon administration.

Hannah Bennett asked about international documents, such as foreign government records. Some of them, explained Sue, are trendier than others and therefore more likely to be digitized (e.g., Third Reich records). She remembered how the Library spent a lot of money to buy microfilm sets of colonial records that were subsequently digitized.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Next meeting: December 6, 2007.