Integrated Access Council

December 20, 2004


SML Room 409


Present:  Matthew Beacom, Meg Bellinger, Dan Chudnov, Ann Green, Julie Linden, Fred Martz, Jack Meyers, Bobbie Pilette, Kalee Sprague, David Stern, Joan Swanekamp, Rich Szary, Frank Turner


Absent:  Dale Askey, Katie Bauer, Carol DeNatale, Katherine Haskins, Kenny Marone, Kim Parker, Tom Saul


Guest:  Audrey Novak


            There were no comments regarding the notes from the last meeting.


1. Preservation Committee report - Bobbie


             Bobbie stated that the Preservation Committee has been meeting weekly and is making good progress.  Their website has the charge, bibliography and meeting notes.  The list of members will be added there soon.  As to the progress the group has put together the beginnings of a draft policy.  They reviewed other policies including those from the National Preservation Committee, Harvard, Columbia, the British Library, the National Library of Australia and the URPA’s digital preservation tool.  To date they have a mission statement, policy principles, and scope statement.  They are now working on the financial and digital life cycle management statements.  Once they have all of the parts finalized they will bring them back for further discussion. 


            Meg asked what type of communication they were considering to get the information out to the library community.  Bobbie said they have asked for policies to consider and reference in the digital preservation policy.  The next step is to bring this to the IAC.  Then they will decide where to go with that.  It is too early for a communication decision.  Audrey pointed out that there is a varied background in the committee.  She stated that they are not setting priorities for what gets preserved.  The decision about what to preserve will remain with the selectors.  Part of the decision should be in the acquisition process.


2. Metadata Committee report - Joan


             Joan reported that the Metadata Committee has met three times and the notes can be linked from the IAC web page.  They are continuing to educate themselves about projects with metadata components.  Matthew talked about the ELI Metadata Set and Luna’s Personal Insight for personal collection management.  They are putting together a subgroup that will pull together some town hall meetings for library staff and the Yale community that have metadata concerns.  This is partially to educate the Committee about the needs of the community, to raise awareness of metadata issues, and to open the discussion to a broader audience.  The first of these will be held in late February in the lecture hall.    They are trying to be as inclusive as possible.  For example, Ed Kairiss from ITS and David Parsell from the Arts Library are on the committee and can help with broadening the scope of coverage.  Matthew said that the committee is doing the same things as Bobbie’s group but in a different order (town meetings or forums first, policy development to follow).  David asked if there will be outside speakers talking to us or would the opposite happen. Joan replied she hoped they would be talking to us.


            David said that the Peabody has created an international set of communities that use metadata for cross collection searching.  Joan said she attended a meeting in DC several years ago where the Botanical community was far along in using metadata and wanted librarians involved.  Matthew said for the town hall meetings he would like to see the guests at the podium.  There will be a directed invitation; if they advertised via a broadcast it would be less effective.  They hope to have no more than half librarians in the audience.  Frank asked what faculty members are being considered.  Those in Biology and Chemistry are some.  Frank asked about the Social Sciences.  Ann said that people in Forestry also might be interested.  Meg asked about ELI and said to talk with Danuta.  Joan said that Karen Reardon pointed out that very few faculty had images with metadata in ELI.  Frank asked if the Economic Growth Center might be concerned with metadata issues.  David commented there are probably labs with lots of information and no real organization that may be interested.  Frank stressed that we need faculty players.  Meg said she will ask Ann Okerson to make an announcement at ACLP.  Frank replied that this was not a good arena, as we need players.  Meg asked that names be sent to Joan, Matthew or Ann.


3. Future of Scholarly Publishing Forum - Ann


            Ann announced that this forum will take place on February 10th in the Medical School auditorium.  She will send out an announcement.  There will be a series of speakers with Andrew Hamilton kicking off the session with the panel.  Ann Okerson will also speak.  The focus will be on the future of Scholarly Publishing and open access.  The abstract for a focus group is just about finished.  David said there will be a wide range of conversation.  This is open and faculty and graduate students are encouraged to attend.  The auditorium holds 200.  Kenny Marone is a co-sponsor.  There will not be anyone speaking from the Yale Press.  Some personal invitations will be going out.  Ann thanked Kenny for her help with this forum.  Meg said this is the first of three or four other forums that IAC will be involved in planning.


4. MetaLib Implementation Group – Audrey


            Audrey announced that this product is from Ex-Libris.  They looked at the 2.0 version two years ago during the comparison with ENCompass for Resource Access from Endeavor.  Release 3.11 was released this past fall and is very good.  MetaLib has three potential uses:  federated searching across multiple databases, as a list of databases (potentially replacing the Database and Article Searching page on the Library Front Door), and as a list of available e-journals (replacing the Online Journals and Newspapers page).  Members of the Implementation Group are: Dale Askey, Katie Bauer, Kalee Sprague and Audrey Novak.


            They will not be able to offer all data through federated searching.  There are several different levels to searching with MetaLib.  Another problem for us is we don’t have a single coherent list of on-line journals.  The committee has decided there is no way to bring up e-journals as a feature right away.  What they are doing is making modest modifications to the interface appearance, configuring federated search resources, configuring the two additional types of resources (Search and Link and Link only), transferring database descriptions, establishing Categories and Subcategories to which resources are mapped, establishing Quick Sets, experimenting with ways to improve result set presentation, and upgrading from release 3.11 to 3.12. 


            Their next issue is to solve the e-journal problem.  Once this gets into the hands of the public, there will be a lot of work to do.  They are going to schedule a demo for IAC and also at other places.  Meg asked if this will eventually replace the journals database page.  Audrey said right now we can only have one URL in the description with MetaLib.  Currently we have several.  Meg also asked if one could for example scan Arts and Architecture at the same time.  Audrey replied that yes you can create your own categories.  You can easily share groupings.  Faculty could create Quick Sets pretty easily to share with their classes.  You can also create a generic login for a group. 


            MetaLib could be made available to the public in January if test results are received well.  David said that the roll out will create work.  Fred asked how many resources there are.  Audrey replied that the total was over 100.  Meg said we should schedule a full meeting on this topic.


5. Portal Opportunities Group – Kalee


            Kalee announced that this group was recently formed.  This topic was an outcome of the LSO retreat held last year.  During the past year Karen, Roy and Kalee formed a task force and experimented with uPortal as a means for distributing library information.  They started by talking to faculty about what they could do for classes.  Kalee pointed out that this new group is a brainstorming group with a six-month charge.  They met on December 9 for the first time.  The group established a list of potential services and interfaces.  This is a brainstorming list to begin work with.  These ideas will be discussed more at the January 6th meeting.


            Kalee stated that this is a broad scope since six months is not a long time.  Their website is linked off of the IAC web page.  They are hoping to sponsor forums to get ideas for portal application needs and opportunities.  The first would be a Sakai forum regarding its impact.  Sakai will be replacing  Meg said that Sakai will have five classes this spring in test mode.  One hundred are expected to use this next fall.  There are plans to form a joint ITS/Library Sakai planning group.


            Kalee said that the Library Portal/Interface Opportunities Group is library oriented and consists of the following members: Katie Bauer, Ann Green, Emily Horning, Roy Lechich, Julie Linden, Scott Matheson, Karen Reardon and Kalee Sprague. 


6. Update on Priorities Worksheet – Ann


            Meg said that she is sure all are familiar with the worksheet document.  It continues to evolve with the work of Ann Green, Fred, Julie, Matthew and others.  The purpose is to articulate the group’s understanding of integrated access.  They have grouped things into four clear areas.  Meg distributed an additional working document that grew out of the need for a simpler version of the worksheet when she presented the ideas to LMC.  She believes that two of the categories, integrated access and digital life cycle management, are interconnected, and both are influenced and driven by a user focused orientation.  These are all imbedded in partnerships and collaborations.  As we move forward we need to come to an understanding of the categories and their relationships by having further presentations and discussions about the issues on the diagram.  The next step will be the drafting of a business plan with resource allocations, budget, personnel, timelines, etc.  This will be a five-year plan.  The first draft of the business plan will be developed this spring. 


            Ann said some suggestions she has received about the document are in regard to what is not on the list, what is on the list and moving forward, and actions we want to work on immediately.  She is talking with Dale regarding access services and actions.  Meg’s diagram helps us understand the complexities of the more detailed worksheet better by offering a more concise version.  She handed out a revised version of Fred’s Digital Landscape diagram which will be discussed at a later IAC meeting.  These three documents are very a strong statement of where we are today and are a basis for the business plan that Meg will be developing


            Meg said that the February meeting will have a discussion of the user focused view of integrated access and will include further discussion about this document.  She asked if there are any other suggestions for the January 24th meeting.  She would like to hear about the Developer’s Forum, and will invite Chuck to discuss Sakai, and Karen to talk about the IAC Developers’ Forum.