Source: http://www.rdatoolkit.org/content/364

The Library of Congress (LC) announced today that they would move forward with full implementation of RDA: Resource Description and Access on March 31, 2013. LC cited the significant progress that has been made toward addressing the recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee report of June 2011, and the need for sufficient lead time to prepare staff for the switch to RDA cataloging as reasons for the timing of this decision. The U.S. National Agricultural Library and the National Library of Medicine, as well as the British Library, Library & Archives Canada, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, and National Library of Australia, will also target Day One of their implementation of RDA in the first quarter of 2013.

Read the full LC announcement.

Les comparto recursos en línea sobre catalogación que la LOC ha recopilado.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Catalogers Learning Workshop (CLW) provides information professionals training resources related to the organization and classification of bibliographic information. For courses that qualify one for membership as contributors to the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC), see About PCC Training.

RDA: Resource Description & Access Training Materials

RDA/FRBR Webcasts

  • RDA Changes from AACR2 for Texts Barbara Tillett (01/12/2010 : 75 minutes). This webcast explores the changes from AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed.) that the new code RDA: Resource Description & Access brings.
  • Resource Description and Access: Background / Overview Barbara Tillett (05/14/2008 : 67 minutes). This webcast provides background on its development and a general overview of the conceptual models, international principles, and structure of RDA: Resource Description & Access.
  • Cataloging Principles and RDA: Resource Description and Access Barbara Tillett (06/10/2008 : 49 minutes). This webcast deals with the cataloging principles that have influenced the development of RDA; the challenges they present to the international sharing of bibliographic and authority data; and the challenges they present to the developers of RDA.
  • FRBR : Things You Should Know, But Were Afraid To Ask Barbara Tillett (03/04/2009 : 57 minutes). This webcast for non-catalogers is intended to present basic concepts and benefits of using the FRBR conceptual model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) in resource discovery systems.

FRBR: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records

RDA Toolkit

  • Using the RDA Toolkit [Word : 37 p. : 866 KB : Nov. 2011] In the series: Library of Congress Training for RDA: Resource Description & Access

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Workshop Course Materials

CLW course materials are available free of charge in PDF format. All courses offered here are considered the latest and only official English language versions sanctioned by the Library of Congress.

Cataloging Skills (CCT)

The Digital Library Environment (Cat21)

Continuing Resources (SCCTP)

NACO Program Training Workshop

NACO Program Advanced Corporate Names Workshop

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Related Links

Additional resources for teaching and learning metadata, cataloging, and classification.

**Source**

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 – 9:26 am e — jhennelly

This week’s interview is with OCLC, the organization behind WorldCat, Connexion and several other library-related products and services. The responses have been provided by Glenn Patton, Director, WorldCat Quality Management Division, OCLC.

Question 1: Is your cataloging system current with MARC 21 updates 9, 10, and 11, which made changes to MARC to accommodate RDA? If not, do you plan to update, and do you have a timeline for updating? Have you made the changes for both bibliographic and authority records?

GP: OCLC has implemented all of the RDA-related changes from MARC 21 Updates 9, 10, and 11. Some additional changes from Update 11 and the changes included in Update 12 will be implemented in August 2011. These changes cover both bibliographic and authority records.

OCLC has also implemented links from the Connexion browser and client to the RDA Toolkit so that OCLC member libraries that subscribe to the Toolkit are able to link from a displayed bibliographic or authority record to the relevant RDA instructions.

Question 2: Are your system’s displays (public facing and admin) capable of displaying the new RDA fields added to MARC? Are any future changes planned? If so, can you share a timeline?

GP: All of the new RDA fields for both bibliographic and authority records are displayed in OCLC cataloging interfaces (Connexion browser and client) and are included in search results through Z39.50 Cataloging. They are not displayed in public display but several have been incorporated into indexing, filtering and faceting functionality (see question 3).

Question 3: Please describe your system’s search interface (including its indexing, filtering, and faceting functions), and how it handles the new RDA fields. Are any future changes planned? If so, can you share a timeline?

GP: For a number of years, OCLC has used a system of “document types” and “material types” to provide users with more granular search limiters, to support the display of icons in search results and to assist in faceting. The terminology which is specified for Content Type, Media Type and Carrier Types (MARC 21 fields 336, 337, and 338) and their MARC 21 coded equivalents have been incorporated into that system and are currently in use.

Question 4: Does your system support cataloging in encodings other than MARC? If so, have you made any changes to these encodings in order to support RDA? Are any future changes planned? If so, can you share a timeline?

GP: OCLC supports the creation and editing of records in Dublin Core in the Connexion browser and allows the export of those records in HTML and RDF. The Connexion client supports export of Dublin Core of XML. CONTENTdm supports the use of Dublin Core and VRA Core. The crosswalks that support these other records structures were updated as part of the MARC update projects described in Question 1.

Question 5: Libraries are likely to be in a mixed records environment for some time. Do you have any plans to discontinue support to AACR2 records in the foreseeable future?

GP: OCLC has no plans to discontinue support for AACR2 records.

Question 6: Do you have any display, search, or other concerns about using your system in a mixed record environment where AACR2 and RDA records are co-mingled in the catalog?

GP: One of OCLC’s goals in participating in the U.S. National Libraries RDA Test was to test the interoperability of RDA records in OCLC’s various interfaces. The test did not reveal any significant problems.

Question 7: RDA has an increased focus on record-to-record relationships based on FRBR and adopted the Work-Expression-Manifestation-Item structure. Does your system currently take advantage of this new data and structure to improve the user experience in any way? Are any future user experience improvements based on this data planned? If so, can you share a timeline?

GP: OCLC has done pioneering work in exploring the use of FRBR to improve the user’s discovery experience. The FRBR algorithms, developed by OCLC Research, have been incorporated into WorldCat and are used to enhance search results in WorldCat.org and WorldCat Local. The additional data and more explicit relationships in RDA will provide those algorithms with more to work with.

Question 8: Some have said that the benefits of RDA cannot be fully realized while MARC remains the dominant encoding standard. If RDA is adopted, how viable do you think MARC will be going forward? What sort of issues would a move away from MARC raise for your product(s)?

GP: MARC 21 and its predecessors have served the library community well for nearly 50 years but taking full advantage of what RDA offers requires more flexible and robust data structures. OCLC welcomes the Library of Congress’s recent announcement of the Bibliographic Framework Transformation Initiative and looks forward to working with LC colleagues on this initiative.

FULL REPORT – 192 pgs.

“Contingent on the satisfactory progress/completion of the tasks and action items below, the Coordinating Committee recommends that RDA should be implemented by LC, NAL, and NLM no sooner than January 2013. The three national libraries should commit resources to ensure progress is made on these activities that will require significant effort from many in and beyond the library community.”

source: http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full

A review of the current literature

  1. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee

The ACRL Research, Planning and Review Committee, a component of the Research Coordinating Committee, is responsible for creating and updating a continuous and dynamic environmental scan for the association that encompasses trends in academic librarianship, higher education, and the broader environment. As a part of this effort, the committee develops a list of the top ten trends that are affecting academic libraries now and in the near future. This list was compiled based on an extensive review of current literature (see selected bibliography at the end of this article). The committee also developed an e-mail survey that was sent to 9,812 ACRL members in February 2010. Although the response rate was small (about five percent), it helped to clarify the trends.

The trends are listed in alphabetical order.

Academic library collection growth is driven by patron demand and will include new resource types. Budget reductions, user preferences for electronic access to materials, limited physical space, and the inability to financially sustain comprehensive collections have led many academic libraries to shift from a “just-in-case” to a “just-in-time” philosophy. This change has been facilitated by customized patron-driven acquisitions programs from some major library book distributors, improved print-on-demand options for monographs, patron desire for new resource types, and resource sharing systems, such as RapidILL, offering 24-hour turnaround time for article requests. Still to be determined are the long-term effects of this change on the ability of academic libraries to meet their clientele’s information needs, the stability of some of the new access methods, and implications for future scholarship. Increasingly, libraries are acquiring local collections and unique materials and, when possible, digitizing them to provide immediate, full-text online access to increase visibility and use. Access to full-text sources, not the discovery of the sources, is a major issue for scholars.1

These materials may include special collections, university archives, and/or the scholarly output of faculty and students. Libraries also recognize the need to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital datasets.

According to a 2009 OCLC report, datasets are beginning to be made available online for “collecting,” but libraries still need to learn how to support discovery.2 The 2010 Horizon Report identified visual data analysis tools as one of the emerging technologies most likely to enter mainstream use on campuses within the next four-to-five years.3 Additional collection development trends noted by survey respondents include the effect of Google Books on library collections, the monopolization of content resulting from consolidation in the publishing industry and the demise of a number of smaller publishers and publications, and a growth in shared collection development.

Budget challenges will continue and libraries will evolve as a result. This is a trend no one wants to see continue, but one that is real for many postsecondary institutions. Many libraries faced stagnant or reduced operating and materials budgets for the 2009–10 fiscal year, and the near future will likely bring additional budget pressures.

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the average return for college and university endowments in the 2009 fiscal year was −18.7 percent, the worst since 1974. In addition, federal stimulus dollars for education are running out, with only 14.2 percent of the stimulus money set aside for states’ education budget remaining for the 2011 fiscal year and 20 states with nothing left to spend; the proportion of state budgets spent on public colleges and the proportion of college budgets that come from the state were already declining, with the recession exacerbating a trend whereby state spending on higher education failed to keep up with enrollment growth and inflation; even when the economy improves, state revenues typically lag in their recovery by at least two years.4 Survey respondents are concerned about the effect of budget pressures on their ability to attract and retain staff, build collections, provide access to resources and services, and develop and implement innovative services.

Changes in higher education will require that librarians possess diverse skill sets. As technological changes continue to impact not only the way libraries are used but also the nature of collections, librarians need to broaden their portfolio of skills to provide services to users. Academic librarians will need ongoing formal training to continue in the profession. We may see an increasing number of non-MLS professionals in academic libraries with the skills needed to work in this changing environment. Graduate LIS programs and professional organizations will be challenged to provide new and relevant professional development while individual librarians and their institutions will struggle to fund such development. The profession may need to consider whether the terminal degree required for librarians should be changed or broadened.

A recent OCLC report calls for academic libraries to “reassess all library job descriptions and qualifications to ensure that training and hiring encompass the skills, education, and experience needed to support new modes of research.”5 The impending retirement of many library directors will also create changes. Are associate deans/directors ready for new roles? What about the middle managers who might step into higher-level administrative roles? Leadership training and mentoring, both formal and informal, are critical to a smooth transition. Survey respondents fear that positions will be eliminated as individuals retire and that widespread retirements will result in a leadership gap and loss of institutional memory. They also worry that older librarians are delaying retirement for economic reasons, thereby reducing opportunities for newer librarians.

Demands for accountability and assessment will increase. Increasingly, academic libraries are required to demonstrate the value they provide to their clientele and institutions. This trend is part of a broader accountability movement within higher education, resulting from demands from federal and state governments, accrediting bodies, employers, parents, and taxpayers for institutions to show the value of a college education and results of student learning outcomes.

In the current economic climate, competition for limited funds has intensified with some institutions revisiting funding formulas for libraries. It is increasingly important to demonstrate the library’s impact on student learning outcomes, student engagement, student recruitment and retention, successful grant applications, and faculty research productivity. Several studies are underway that will help academic libraries document the value of their services and collections, using both qualitative and quantitative data. Of particular interest are ACRL’s value of academic libraries research project and “Value, Outcomes, and Return on Investment of Academic Libraries (Lib-Value),” a three-year grant-funded study led by researchers at the University of Tennessee, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the Association of Research Libraries.6

Digitization of unique library collections will increase and require a larger share of resources. Digitization projects make hidden and underused special collections available to researchers worldwide. As Clifford Lynch (Coalition for Networked Information) has said, “special collections are a nexus where technology and content are meeting to advance scholarship in extraordinary new ways.”7

Many digital projects have been funded in part by grants from sources such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the Mellon Foundation, while others are supported in total by institutional funds. Collaborative digitization opportunities abound: member libraries of the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries are creating a digital shared collection of 5,000 items from their rare and special collections that will help explain the intellectual underpinnings of the American Civil War. The University of California Digital Library used IMLS funds for the California Local History Digital Resources Project, to which more than 65 institutions contributed. Because of the staffing, equipment, and storage costs associated with digital projects, libraries often must reallocate fiscal resources to support these projects. Like other library collections and services, digitization efforts may be affected by stagnant or reduced budgets.

Explosive growth of mobile devices and applications will drive new services. Smart phones, e-book readers, iPads, and other handheld devices will drive user demands and expectations. The 2009 ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology found that 51.2 percent of respondents owned an Internet-capable handheld device and another 11.8 percent planned to purchase one within the next 12 months.8 Students indicated that they most wanted to use their institution’s e-mail service, administrative services, and course management system from their handheld devices. While only 14.8 percent of respondents indicated that they wanted to use library services, this percentage is likely to grow quickly, as vendors offer mobile interfaces to electronic resources, mobile applications for OPACs increase, and more libraries offer reference services via text messaging and mobile interfaces to their own digital collections.

Librarians will need to think creatively about developing services for users of mobile devices and take into account both user needs and preferences and the relationship of services to the academic program of their institution.9 Regardless of the services a library chooses to offer, there will be staffing, training, budgeting, marketing, and instruction implications.

Increased collaboration will expand the role of the library within the institution and beyond. Collaboration efforts will continue to diversify: collaborating with faculty to integrate library resources into the curriculum and to seek out information literacy instruction, and as an embedded librarian; working with scholars to provide access to their data sets, project notes, papers, etc. in virtual research environments and digital repositories; collaborating with information technology experts to develop online tutorials and user-friendly interfaces to local digital collections; collaborating with student support services to provide integrated services to students; and collaborating with librarians at other institutions to improve open source software, share resources, purchase materials, and preserve collections.

The HathiTrust shared digital repository and 2CUL are two examples of recent, large-scale collaborations.10 Partnership in HathiTrust is open to research institutions worldwide who share its vision of collecting, organizing, preserving, communicating, and sharing the record of human knowledge. The Cornell and Columbia University Libraries have formed an innovative partnership called 2CUL that will result in a pooling of resources and broad integration on a number of fronts, such as cataloging, e-resource management, collaborative collection development, and digital preservation. Collaboration epitomizes the service orientation of librarianship and will continue to help maximize the efficient use of resources. Librarians are making use of Google Docs, Doodle, wikis, and other tools that facilitate collaboration regardless of physical proximity.

Libraries will continue to lead efforts to develop scholarly communication and intellectual property services. Academic libraries have recognized the importance of scholarly communication and intellectual property issues for many years. Recent developments illustrate a trend toward proactive efforts to educate faculty and students about authors’ rights and open access publishing options and to recruit content for institutional repositories (IRs). Digital repository project managers report that scholars “lacked an understanding of copyright and the issues of copyright compliance”11 and that many of them “did not understand or could not remember or retrieve the agreements that were signed with publishers for the publication and dissemination of their work”.12 Interest in these issues is illustrated by the growth in SPARC membership: more than 200 North American research and academic libraries belong to SPARC; about the same number participated in the Open Access Week in 2009.13

Recruiting content for IRs provides a natural entrée for conversations about scholarly communication issues. This also illustrates the need for libraries to provide guidance and user education on copyright law, and, in particular, the need to obtain permission to use copyrighted material in one’s work if the use is not covered by the fair use exception. Libraries are addressing the need to provide value-added scholarly communication services in a variety of ways. Some libraries have created scholarly communication librarian or copyright officer positions. Others have taken a more distributed approach. The University of Minnesota, for example, has included scholarly communication responsibilities in the position descriptions of all of its liaison librarians.

Other trends, including growing use of open source products, creation of more locally created digital collections, the increasing complexity of licensing issues, and litigation involving the use of materials in course e-reserves and course management systems, reinforce the need for academic libraries to provide value-added intellectual property services.

Technology will continue to change services and required skills. Cloud computing, augmented and virtual reality, discovery tools, open content, open source software, and new social networking tools are some of the most important technological changes affecting academic libraries. As with mobile applications, these developments will affect nearly all library operations. Two exciting developments are OCLC’s new cooperative Web-scale library management services and discovery tools, which provide a single interface to multiple resources using a centralized consolidated index that promises faster and better search results than federated searching.

While social networking tools can help libraries go where their users are, many librarians see challenges in determining which tools to use, how many resources to devote, and how to assess effectiveness. Librarians also will be monitoring the success of open source integrated library systems software and the RDA: Resource Description and Access standard.

The definition of the library will change as physical space is repurposed and virtual space expands. Most academic libraries provide access to a more resources than ever before. However, the number of physical items in many libraries is declining, as libraries withdraw journal runs to which they have permanent online archival access and/or move lesser-used materials to off-site or shared storage facilities, thus freeing up areas that are repurposed to provide space for individual student and collaborative work. Libraries are expanding their virtual space, reducing space within the library facility for collections, and re-purposing it for student use. The concept of “Library as Place” is still important to students, researchers, and many faculty members. Some libraries have added writing, tutoring, and media centers to provide multiple academic support services in one convenient location.

Finding a balance that serves all clientele continues to be a challenge. These changes are coming at the same time that in-person reference desk statistics are declining at many academic libraries, while online reference statistics are increasing. In some instances, this is tied to a growth in distance or online courses offered by the institution; in others, it may simply be due to user preference and convenience: “It is clear that regardless of age or experience, academic discipline, or context of the information need, speed and convenience are important to users and are factors when selecting discovery tools and resources.”14

Librarians are also expanding the library’s virtual presence through involvement in course management systems and online social networking sites, the creation of online tutorials and other instruction aids, and more vibrant and interactive Web sites. How to convey the value of the complementary nature of the physical and online services to support the teaching and instruction mission of the university to campus administrators presents an ongoing challenge.

There were a number of other trends that the committee considered but that did not yet rise to this level. Sustainability, in particular, was an issue that the committee sees as a growing trend that will probably be included is this list in coming years.

The committee welcomes your comments and feedback on the trends. A virtual session will be held on July 7 as a part of the ALA Annual Virtual Conference to allow for a more in-depth discussion of this report.

Footnotes

  • Members of the ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee: Lynn Silipigni Connaway is a senior research scientist at OCLC Research, e-mail: lynn_connaway@oclc.org; Karen Downing is foundation/grants and executive research service librarian at University of Michigan, e-mail: kdown@umich.edu; Yunfei Du is assistant professor, College of Information, University of North Texas, e-mail: ydu@unt.edu; Donna Goda is reference-bibliographer for international studies and foreign languages at the U.S. Naval Academy, e-mail: goda@usna.edu; Mildred L. Jackson is associate dean for collections at University of Alabama, e-mail: mljackson@ua.edu; Ryan Johnson, chair, is head of information, outreach and delivery services at University of Mississippi, e-mail: rjohnson@olemiss.edu; Janice S. Lewis is associate director at East Carolina University, e-mail: lewisja@ecu.edu; Lutishoor Salisbury is head of the Chemistry and Biochemistry Library at University of Arkansas, e-mail: lsalisbu@uark.edu
  • Registration is now open for the following e-learning opportunities from ACRL. Stretch your professional development budget by registering now for these affordable distance learning events! Space is limited, so register now to reserve your seat!Instructional Design for Online Teaching and Learning (Online Seminar: June 28 – July 30, 2010)Promoting Information Literacy through a Better Designed Learning User Experience (Live Webcast: June 28, 2010)

    Introduction to Web site Usability (Online Seminar: July 12–30, 2010)

    Marketing Ideas That Work in Academic Libraries: Pecha Kucha Presentations (Live Webcast: July 13, 2010)

    Check In with Location Based Mobile Services: Foursquare and Libraries (Live Webcast: July 20, 2010)

    Complete details and registration information on all upcoming events are available on the ACRL e-Learning Web site at www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/elearning.

  • © American Library Association, 2010

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Dickey Timothy J.

    , The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behavior Projects, 2010, www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf.

  2. 2.
    1. Palmer Carole L.,
    2. Teffeau Lauren C.,
    3. Pirmann Carrie M.

    , Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment: Themes from the Literature and Implications for Library Service Development. Report Commissioned by OCLC Research (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2009), www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf.

  3. 3.
    1. Johnson L.,
    2. Levine A.,
    3. Smith R.,
    4. Stone S.

    , The 2010 Horizon Report (Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2010), wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/.

  4. 4.
    “Performance of College-Endowment Investments,” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 28, 2010, chronicle.com/article/Chart-Performance-of/63754/; Sara Hebel, “State Cuts Are Pushing Public Colleges into Peril,” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 14, 2010), chronicle.com/article/In-Many-States-Public-High/64620/.
  5. 5.
    1. Bourg Chris,
    2. Coleman Ross,
    3. Erway Ricky

    , Support for the Research Process: An Academic Library Manifesto (Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2009), www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2009/2009-07.pdf.

  6. 6.
    1. ACRL

    , “ACRL Selects Value of Academic Libraries Researcher” (Chicago, IL: ACRL, 2010), http://0-www.ala.org.sapl.sat.lib.tx.us/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2010/january2010/researcher_acrl.cfm; David Green, “ARL Partners in Grant to Study Value of Academic Libraries” (Washington, DC: ARL, 2009), www.arl.org/news/pr/ROI-grant-12jan10.shtml.

  7. 7.
    1. Lynch Clifford A.

    , “Special Collections at the Cusp of the Digital Age: A Credo,” Research Library Issues: A Bimonthly Report from ARL, CNI and SPARC 267 (December 2009), publications.arl.org/pageview/prvp3/4.

  8. 8.
    1. Smith Shannon D.,
    2. Salaway Gail,
    3. Caruso Judith Borreson

    , The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2009 (Boulder, CO: Educause Centre for Applied Research, 2009), www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0906/rs/ERS0906w.pdf.

  9. 9.
    1. Lippincott Joan K.

    , “Mobile Reference: What are the Questions?” The Reference Librarian 51, 1 (2010): 1–11, www.cni.org/staff/joanpubs/mobile.RefLibn.final.pdf.

  10. 10.
    2CUL Web site: www.2cul.org/; HathiTrust Web site: www.hathitrust.org/.
  11. 11.
    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Dickey Timothy J.

    , Towards a Profile of the Researcher of Today: What Can We Learn from JISC Projects? Common Themes Identified in an Analysis of JISC Virtual Research Environment and Digital Repository Projects (2010), 2. http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/418/2/VirtualScholar_themesFromProjects_revised.pdf.

  12. 12.
    Ibid.
  13. 13.
    SPARC Web site: www.arl.org/sparc/.
  14. 14.
    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Dickey Timothy J.

    The Digital Information Seeker: Report of Findings from Selected OCLC, RIN, and JISC User Behavior Projects (2010), 32, www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/digitalinformationseekerreport.pdf.

Additional sources

    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni

    . 2008. “Make room for the Millennials.” NextSpace 10: 18–19. www.oclc.org/nextspace/010/research.htm.

    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni

    . 2007. “Mountains, valleys, and pathways: Serials users’ needs and steps to meet them.” Part I: Identifying serials users’ needs: Preliminary analysis of focus group and semi-structured interviews at colleges and universities. Serials Librarian 52 (1/2): 223–236. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/connaway-serialslibrarian.pdf.

    1. Thompson H.
    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Radford Marie L.

    2007. “Service sea change: Clicking with Screenagers through virtual reference.” In Thompson H. (Ed.), Sailing into the future: Charting our destiny: proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March 29–April 1, 2007, Baltimore, Maryland. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/connaway-acrl.pdf.

    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Radford Marie L.,
    3. Dickey Timothy J.

    2008. “On the trail of the elusive non-user: What research in virtual reference environments reveals.” ASIST Bulletin 34(2): 25–28. www.asis.org/Bulletin/Dec-07/DecJan08_Connaway_etc.pdf.

    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Radford Marie L.,
    3. Dickey Timothy J.,
    4. Williams Jocelyn DeAngelis,
    5. Confer Patrick

    . 2008. “Sense-making and synchronicity: Information-seeking behaviors of Millennials and Baby Boomers.” Libri 58(2): 123–35. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2008/connaway-libri.pdf.

    1. Mueller D. M.
    1. Connaway Lynn Silipigni,
    2. Radford Marie L.,
    3. Williams Jocelyn DeAngelis

    . 2009. Engaging Net Gen students in virtual reference: Reinventing services to meet their information behaviors and communication preferences. In Mueller D. M. (Ed.), Pushing the edge: Explore, extend, engage: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, March 12–15, 2009, Seattle, Washington (pp. 10–27). Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2009/connaway-acrl-2009.pdf.

    1. Cordes Sean

    . 2009. “Adult learners: How IT can support ‘new’ students.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32,1. www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE%2BQuarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/AdultLearnersHowITCanSupportNe/163869 (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Council on Library and Information Resources

    . 2008. “No brief candle: Reconceiving research libraries for the 21st century.” Washington D.C.: CLIR. www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub142/pub142.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Dew John

    . 2010. “Global, mobile, virtual, and social: The college campus of tomorrow.” The Futurist, March/April, 46–50. mobile-libraries.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-mobile-virtual-and-social.html (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Frye Leadership Institute

    . www.fryeinstitute.org/.

    1. Head J. Alison,
    2. Eisenberg Michael B.

    2009. “Lessons learned: how college students seek information in the digital age” Project information literacy progress report. The Information School, University of Washington. projectinfolit.org/pdfs/PIL_Fall2009_Year1Report_12_2009.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Hendrix Jennifer C.

    2010. “Checking out the future perspectives from the library community on information technology and 21st century libraries.” Washington D.C.: ALA Office of Information Technology Policy. connect.ala.org/files/69099/ala_checking_out_the_pdf_93915.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Livingstone Alan

    . 2009. “The revolution no one noticed: mobile phones and multi-mobile services in higher education.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32.1. www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRevolutionNoOneNoticedMobil/163866 (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Malenfant Kara. J.

    2010. “Leading change in the system of scholarly communication: A case study of engaging liaison librarians for outreach to faculty.” College and Research Libraries 71.1: 63–76. www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/crljournal/preprints/Malenfant.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Michalko James,
    2. Malpas Constance,
    3. Arcolio Arnold

    . 2010. “Research libraries, risk and systemic change.” www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf.

    1. Oblinger Diana G.

    2010. “From the campus to the future.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 45.1:42–52. www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/FromtheCampustotheFuture/195801 (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Palfrey John,
    2. Gasser Urs

    . 2008. Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books

    1. Schonfeld Roger C.,
    2. Housewright Ross

    . 2009. “Documents for a Digital Democracy: A Model for the Federal Depository Library Program in the 21st Century.” Ithaka S+R [report]. www.arl.org/bm~doc/documents-for-a-digital-democracy.pdf (accessed April 5, 2010).

    1. Schonfeld Roger C.,
    2. Housewright Ross

    . 2010. “Faculty Survey 2009: Strategic Insights for Librarians, Publishers, and Societies.” www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/faculty-survey-2009.

**Reposted from the Library of Congress**

Report and Recommendations

The Library of Congress, the National Agricultural Library, and the National Library of Medicine are pleased to issue a statement from the Executives of the three libraries regarding the Report and Recommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee on the implementation of RDA—Resource Description & Access.  This statement and the Executive Summary of the Committee’s Report and Recommendations are being issued to allow interested parties sufficient time to review prior to the upcoming Annual Conference of the American Library Association in New Orleans, June 23 -28.

National Libraries RDA Test

In response to concerns about RDA raised by the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, the three U.S. national libraries–the Library of Congress (LC), the National Library of Medicine (NLM), and the National Agricultural Library (NAL)–made a commitment to the further development and completion of RDA.  The three libraries agreed to make a joint decision on whether or not to implement RDA, based on the results of a test of both RDA and the Web product.  The goal of the test was to assure the operational, technical, and economic feasibility of RDA.  Testers included the three national libraries and the broader U.S. library community.

Meeting Summaries from the 2009 ALA Annual Conference

**Reposted from RDA Toolkit**

We are thrilled to announce that our MARC linking service is now available to all. The service is free of charge and will be a powerful tool for both users and vendors. Following the instructions provided, anyone will be able to create a link based on a specific location within MARC to the relevant instruction(s) in RDA Toolkit. The linking service requires URLs constructed on the record type (bibliographic or authority) and the essential MARC data–field, indicators, and subfield. While the service is free to everyone, a subscription to RDA Toolkit is required to view the linked content.

The MARC linking service functions in much the same way that vendors link to MARC documentation. For vendors, the MARC linking service will allow them to program their systems to dynamically recognize a users’ position in a MARC input screen and provide a context-sensitive-help button in their interface that opens a new window linking the user directly to the relevant content of RDA Toolkit. A version of this service is already being used in OCLC’s Connexion. Users can also create their own persistent URLs from their local documentation, staff wiki’s, RDA Toolkit workflows or any other web enabled documents into RDA Toolkit.

This service is based on the MARC-to-RDA MAppings of RDA Toolkit, and these mappings will be regularly updated. But since your links contain only MARC information, there will be no need for you to do any updating on your end. As new mappings are added, the changes will be automatically seen in the hit results returned by your MARC-based links. Not all MARC fields have corresponding RDA instructions, so some links may not lead to RDA instructions.

Guide to the MARC Linking Service

Tal como prometido, aquí está la presentación de Tony Harvell sobre EDIFACT Invoicing.

¡Mil gracias a Tony por su excelente presentación!

** Reposted from The Chronicle of Higher Education **

By Leila W. Salisbury

Last fall, I was a university-press representative on a panel at the Charleston Conference, an annual gathering of academic librarians, vendors, and a handful of publishers. At dinner I sat next to a library dean from a midsized state university. She had previously worked in collection development at the University of California, overseeing a $10-million annual budget. She commented that she had never had dinner with a publisher before. Vendors, yes, but publishers, no. That seemed odd—and dangerous—particularly in the interconnected academic world.

Why aren’t we university presses talking with libraries?

Libraries should matter to us. They are our campus partners, and they are most likely to support our mission as curators and disseminators of scholarship. If we can’t take the time to find out what libraries need and how to deliver and sell content to them effectively, how can we hope to continue to convince administrators that we are good stewards of the resources given to us?

To be sure, several presses are already working with their libraries on digital publishing projects like archiving electronic copies of backlisted books, but that is just a beginning. In 2010 the Association of American University Presses re-established its Library Relations Committee, an important step toward increasing communication. But a committee can’t entirely replace direct dialogue. So, in a spirit of investigation, this spring I began interviewing academic librarians and library vendors about topics they thought presses and libraries should be talking about now.

There are no easy answers, but five issues in our dealings with libraries have significant import for the health of university presses:

Collection development is different than it was five years ago. Or even six months ago. As all too many reports have indicated, library buying patterns have changed significantly and will continue to do so. Library acquisitions have been deeply affected by budget cuts, spiraling costs of journals, and the increased availability of monographs in electronic form. In addition to traditional monograph-approval plans, in which libraries automatically receive either books or descriptive bibliographic “slips” (forms describing books and their contents) that meet their institutional profiles, they can now mix and match cloth or paper, print and electronic editions. They may choose plans that allow them to request e-books, but if the electronic edition is not simultaneously available with the print edition at publication date, they may have the vendor send the print edition, or skip that book altogether and move on to the next book available electronically.

In other words, as Julia Blixrud, assistant executive director of scholarly communication at the Association of Research Libraries, told me, libraries are in the process of defining purchasing models that suit their individual needs. For university presses, this may mean further reductions in print sales as more libraries migrate to electronic monographs. Now is the moment to explore print and electronic bundling and to push for early availability of electronic content.

PDA will not go away. One of the significant developments in library acquisitions that affect university presses is the rise of patron-driven-access programs. Attendees at last year’s conference were shocked to learn of such programs, and the angst-ridden buzz was that PDA would further threaten the survival of already-struggling presses.

In PDA programs, vendors make anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of book records (consisting of bibliographic information, table of contents, and descriptive text) available to patrons through a library’s catalog. Users can then preview the electronic contents of a book in much the same way they would go to the stacks and flip through a monograph to see if it contains information they need. A patron attempting to download, print, or copy any of the book would trigger an automatic library purchase, but in many cases, up to 10 pages may be viewed before a purchase is triggered. That feature alarms many publishers, who fear wide browsing of material and few resulting purchases.

Nevertheless, despite the apparent peril of patron-driven access, there is also promise: Through such programs, scholars and students can preview a wider selection of books through their library systems than they could when they had access only to the books on the shelves. Libraries often write much broader profiles of their patrons and their preferences for their PDA programs than for their book-approval plans. And in a traditional approval plan, the purchasing slip for a book requires human action and can get stuck on the desk of an overworked acquisitions librarian or faculty member who is sent the slip for review.

Michael C. Levine-Clark, collections librarian at the University of Denver’s Penrose Library, is an advocate of patron-driven access because he believes it allows libraries to build significantly better collections. “PDA done right solves the problem we’ve always had,” he told me. According to recent user studies, he noted, up to 40 percent of libraries’ monograph collections never circulate, and only 20 percent of books are used four or more times. “That’s 80 percent of books in a collection being used three or fewer times,” he said. At the same time, he went on, his library buys only a tiny portion of what his users need. Last year it processed nearly 16,000 requests to borrow books from other libraries, a substantial burden; he sees patron-driven access as a potential solution to many problems.

And so do other librarians. The Charleston Conference had no fewer than nine panels with “PDA” in the title. Judith Russell, dean of university libraries at the University of Florida, was “surprised and delighted by the results” of her institution’s PDA experiment. “Patrons were good about choosing things for themselves that would also be of interest to other patrons,” she said.

Patron-driven access is still a work in progress, and many of the libraries that participated in trial programs reported at the conference that they had spent a year’s worth of allocated funds within two to three months. PDA very likely won’t entirely replace approval plans, but as administrators both within and outside libraries look more closely at what is purchased, usage statistics will not be ignored. PDA, or some variation of it, is here to stay.

The current “big deal” may not be. Content packages, or what are often called “the big deal,” have long been another staple of library purchases. Large quantities of scholarly information are packaged together at a great discount, at least as compared with the sum of the individual prices of each book or journal within the package. But now that users have the option to search vast amounts of content, libraries are thinking about selectivity. Vendors have heard the message, and they are developing new profiling technologies to allow end users to get better access to just the content they want. Levine-Clark, of Denver, predicts that “PDA can educate libraries on patterns of purchase that will make them smarter about package and approval deals.” Future packages will probably be shaped by actual use rather than simply existing as large amounts of content offered at a discount.

At the very moment in which libraries are re-evaluating the desirability of packages, however, at least three major aggregations of electronic university-press content are in development or expanding (a partnership of Project MUSE and the University Press e-Book Consortium; Oxford Scholarship Online; and Books at J-STOR). The key to the success of such programs may be the extent to which they can be customized. Libraries may want to pay for only what they actually use, and they will want format flexibility, with content viewable on a wide range of devices.

In this age of the electronic, many libraries also want to bundle their print and electronic purchasing. Michael Zeoli, director of global consortia sales at YBP Library Services, a collection-development company, worries that keeping the sale of print and e-books separate will further erode sales. Zeoli told me that through approval plans, print sales of university-press titles are still robust. If libraries don’t yet have a good system for avoiding the duplicate purchases of electronic material (through different aggregations), then they may choose to block university-press titles altogether from auto-ship approval plans and will buy print titles only when they are specifically requested. At his library, Levine-Clark wants the option to get both print and electronic editions of certain titles, because he needs the flexibility of acquiring the right format for the right library patron. Libraries have different needs, and the new “big deals” will need to be highly flexible in order to lure buyers.

Libraries are not all the same. In formulating strategies for effectively selling to libraries, it pays to remember that different types of libraries may have vastly different institutional profiles and acquisitions goals. A library serving an undergraduate liberal-arts institution may place many purchasing decisions directly in faculty hands, while a library at a research university is more likely to rely on approval plans, databases, and content-aggregation deals. Getting books into the physical or virtual stacks at those two types of libraries requires very different marketing strategies. The first calls for an emphasis on direct marketing to faculty (through traditional print pieces as well as e-mail, e-mail-list announcements, blogs, etc.), while the second calls for brand marketing and working closely with vendors to make sure a press’s content is in the right vendor programs and aggregations. Short-term loans, in which a library pays a percentage of the price to get access to a title for a set period of time, may also be poised to grow in popularity. Such programs can sometimes be more cost effective than traditional interlibrary loans, and they are a way to bridge gaps in a collection and meet immediate user needs.

Libraries may not be the same, but they are natural collaborators, and they are increasingly forming consortia. These consortia, which may comprise public and private institutions (as is the case with the University of Florida libraries and their partners), allow acquisitions budgets to stretch further. As electronic content eliminates the challenges of transporting physical materials, university presses will need to formulate sales models that account for the fact that one purchase or license, rather than the sale of several books, may now serve multiple institutions. Accordingly, sales models and marketing must be as diverse and as fluid as the needs of our content users are. That is a challenging prospect, certainly, but our customers can’t afford to care about our fears or limitations. Which brings me to my final point.

It’s OK to be a business. We have, in large measure, taken our markets and our constituencies for granted. Anna Bullard, director of publisher acquisitions and relations at ebrary, an e-book provider, who worked for more than a decade for university presses, said that libraries were still buying books and e-books, but that commercial academic publishers were getting a bigger piece of the pie. They were early and rapid adopters of e-book technology and content and have invested and innovated in that area. They make sure their e-books are available at the same time as print (or even before), work closely with vendors, and market heavily to libraries and end users. “Libraries need to show administrators value for money and usage statistics, and university presses will have to reckon with that,” Bullard said in an interview.

Increasingly, university presses themselves are being asked by those same administrators to show the value of the investment that campuses make in their presses. Why are we so uncomfortable thinking of ourselves as businesses? We plunge headfirst into the commercial world of regional publishing, and some of us engage in trade publishing, but somehow we are reluctant to look at scholarly content for library customers in a commercial context, and we are still figuring out how to charge enough to adequately support our publishing operations. We may be advancing research on a particular topic or changing the nature of the discourse in a field—that is the reason most of us are drawn to our work—but at the end of the day, we sell goods and collect revenue for those sales. Both content and customer must rule.

University presses will always excel at developing, shaping, and editing scholarly content. But to be viable and to do the work we were brought into existence to do, we have to accept that we are businesses and act accordingly. If we remain unaware of the needs of our end users, or of the nuances of the channels through which our scholarly content travels, how can we hope to develop the systems and policies that will allow us to thrive?

Embracing a business model that allows us to compete with commercial publishers doesn’t have to mean sacrificing our principles. Develop and publish the superior content that libraries and scholars must have. Figure out the access they need, and develop a business model to pay for that work. The landscape has changed, and it will continue to change. Let libraries be our ready-made resource for monitoring and understanding that change, and let us embrace them as allies as we continue to reinvent the business of scholarship.

Leila W. Salisbury is director of the University Press of Mississippi.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.