3/19/02

Background and charge

In February 2001, the Library Information Technology Committee (LITC) recommended the formation of a taskforce on electronic resources. In part the recommendation states: “The Library currently provides access to electronic resources using a number of poorly coordinated methods. A comprehensive review of how we facilitate discovery of and provide access to full-content electronic resources is needed to better assess the impact of emerging technologies, to help define best practices for indexing and linking of these resources, and to better coordinate the various methods and techniques used within the UIUC Library.” 

The recommendation by the LITC highlighted the need to provide a cohesive, integrated means of access to our entire collection. The challenge for the Library in the years ahead is to reconceptualize how we use the catalog and/or other access gateways or portals to provide our users with easy and efficient access to all of our materials. To this end, in April 2001 a Taskforce on Access to Collections was established by University Librarian Paula Kaufman. The Taskforce was charged with making recommendations, both near and long term, for providing access to all of the Library’s print and electronic library resources, as well as to information beyond our walls. Thus the scope of the charge includes un- and undercataloged tangible materials, digital resources, and access to external resources that the Library does not own or license. Through this report, we hope to establish guiding principles and goals for providing the intellectual access that will ultimately aid users in finding and using our rich collection of print- and digital resources and public access tools. 

“Access” in this context refers to the ability to discover/use print and digital resources that the Library owns, licenses, or otherwise makes available. In other words, the focus is on intellectual, rather than physical, access to the Library’s collection. In operational terms, access  means knowing what we have and how to get it. The “collection” includes traditional (tangible) library materials including books, archives, manuscripts, and audiovisual materials, as well as digital resources such as abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases, e-books and e-journals, aggregator databases such as Expanded Academic Index, digital image collections, and non-licensed websites. 

The Taskforce’s approach  

To address these multiple issues, the Taskforce began by providing all Taskforce members with a shared understanding of concepts and technologies such as metadata and linking technologies (e.g., digital object identifiers) that underpin access to intellectual resources. We likewise discussed related issues such as e-resource cataloging and emerging standards. We subsequently divided into subgroups that investigated the specific issues involved in providing access to tangible, digital, and external (interlibrary loan) resources. These groups carried out an analysis of issues and problems, reviewed previous and ongoing work at UIUC, looked at approaches at other institutions, identified potentially available commercial solutions, and made specific short- and long-term recommendations.  (see Appendix I for a review of previous and ongoing work that the Taskforce considered). 

Consider the following scenario:   

An undergraduate looking for scholarly material for a research paper on “US propaganda during WWII” approaches the Library Gateway. She is confronted with numerous options: online catalog, article databases, online reference collection, full text resources, etc. Beginning with a subject search in the online catalog to find books on the topic, she can’t identify all of our materials since those with MARCette records (author/short title/date) won’t be retrieved. Recent items that have been acquired but not processed won’t be reflected, and she won’t know about other relevant materials that may be uncataloged (e.g., items in Rare Books).  

In order to find articles she’ll have to exit the online catalog, identify the appropriate abstracting and indexing (A&I) databases, e.g., America History and Life, Humanities Abstracts, PAIS, etc., and search them individually. Some of the indexes (e.g., those provided by Ovid) will provide a link to UIUC holdings in the online catalog, but only for those journals for which we have cataloging that includes an ISSN. The online catalog record might include a link to a full text digital version of the article, but only if that e-journal has been cataloged or the URL included in the 856 field of the MARC record. Otherwise, she needs to exit the database and check the e-journals list—which does not consistently list those e-journals that are included in aggregator services such as InfoTrac. If she can’t identify an electronic copy, she needs to go to the online catalog and enter the journal title to find a print copy. Newspapers present a similar challenge in locating print/electronic indexes and finding print (microfilm) or digital copies of articles. And finally, in relying on the online catalog and article databases, she won’t discover significant local or external digital resources or research collections relating to her topic, such as the U of I Archives Holdings database or the Library of Congress’s American Memory Project.  

If our researcher wants to identify or borrow materials beyond UIUC’s collection, she can relatively easily search and request books from ILCSO libraries. If the book is not held in the state, however, she needs log onto WorldCat, and other online catalog networks such as the VEL (Virtual Electronic Library of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation), re-do the search, and place a request, or find IRRC’s website and fill out the form. If she wants to obtain articles not available in our collection, she needs to copy the bibliographic information, find the IRRC website, and re-key the data.  

Contrast this convoluted procedure with the one-stop approach to searching the web:  a single query is made to a search engine such as Google, and in many cases relevant—if not consistently scholarly--information is retrieved. A UCLA study of American freshmen in 1998 found that 82.9% of new freshmen were using the Internet for their research or homework.[1] A report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 94% of students aged 12-17 reported using the Internet to do research for school[2].  The challenge for the library is to provide our users with the same ease of searching but with the ability to retrieve the quality, scholarly information that libraries pay enormous sums to provide. 

The scenario described above highlights many, but not all, of the challenges we face in identifying what we have and how to get/use it, as well as how to effectively integrate our resources into a seamless information landscape. Many of these challenges have arisen as  other access tools such as A&I databases, stand-alone full text databases, and other networked digital resources have developed independently of the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), which no longer serves as  the central source of electronic information about collections.  These challenges and the Taskforce’s specific recommendations for addressing them are detailed below 

Current Challenges to Access: 

· Provide timely, appropriate, and integrated access to all tangible resources that the Library has acquired

· Provide timely, appropriate, and integrated access to all digital resources that the Library has acquired

· Search multiple databases simultaneously and integrate the resulting searches

·  Develop the capability to link  from citations in A&I services to the Library’s print and/or digital holdings

· Develop the capability to link to the full text of an article cited within a paper

· Provide access to digital collections developed by other research institutions

· Facilitate and integrate access to external resources (i.e., tangible materials not currently available in our collection) 

III. Development of a Library Portal 

In the new information environment, access is more than providing a bibliographic record. Access means providing information about the existence and nature of a given information source or item, and providing a clear and easily understood mechanism for viewing, using or borrowing the information, including necessary membership, rules, and technology to accomplish access. In other words, access involves both knowing about and getting to information. It also addresses the ecological framework of information: the interconnectedness represented by links to similar works by the same author or on the same topic.  

Ultimately the means to an integrated search system is through development of a library portal. The UIUC Library currently provides through its Gateway web pages a “front door” to diverse resources that utilize a combination of HTML documents and a registry database for some journal titles to help users determine which resources they need to use, and to supply links to them. The Gateway presents the user with a variety of choices for locating disparate information formats that are held in numerous databases, including: 

The Gateway’s underlying technology consists of HTML documents containing overview information and links to and from specific resources that Library faculty and staff have agreed ought to be co-located for user convenience.  The Gateway also plays a role in the user authentication process, whereby specific software sorts out a user’s eligibility (based on whether he/she is a member of the UIUC community) to have access to various resources. The Gateway offers neither a mechanism that would enable searching across these disparate resources, nor a customized pathfinder approach that assists the user in determining the correct path to take in searching for the desired information.   

The Library’s current Gateway enhances access to a number of online journal titles through the use of a locally-developed e-resource registry.  This registry was created with the understanding that online catalogs are not designed to enable effective management of dynamic e-resources such as those available through the Web.  The Systems Office has developed this registry of the journal titles and print holdings information for a number of titles that are held in the Library.  Links to local holdings that appear in online A&I databases are facilitated through the e-resource registry.  There is a helpful HTML page that assists users to determine, on a broad subject basis, which databases might best suit searching interests after the user has indicated he/she would like to search for references to articles in citation, abstracting, and full-text databases.  The creation of the e-resource registry was a sound initial idea that is a logical place for the construction and maintenance of metadata about local locations of resources.  Regardless, the Library will need the expanded the functionality of the e-resource registry, if for no other reason than to supply vendors such as Serials Solutions with information about our journal title holdings and locations.  Finally, in our e-resource registry we assign a rudimentary subject classification for these resources. The Library needs to identify processes to insure that the OPAC subject classification and the e-resource registry classification are consistent. 

At this point, our current Gateway configuration fulfills a rudimentary pathfinder role.  It supports IP-based authorization, access to disparate information resources on an individual basis, and does provide some basic linking information about the Library’s print holdings, but not in all cases with different commercial A&I services.  The Gateway was not designed to incorporate the technology that would enable a user to formulate a search query without first choosing a specific resource against which to execute the query.  This is perhaps the biggest point of departure between what we have now, and the concept of the portal. 

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has been engaged in the development of a scholar’s portal, which is described as a web presence that would assist scholars in identifying and obtaining access to the “highest quality content” available through the web: digital books, articles, images, and other texts which libraries typically acquire.  The Taskforce agrees with this proposal in principle, but we believe that there is an important level of local development that must take place in order to enable an institution such as UIUC to contribute both content and applications to this effort. The Taskforce has expanded the concept of the scholar’s portal, identifying the functionality that is needed in order for a scholar to enter into an environment in which effective searching is facilitated across many data sources in disparate formats without exhaustive effort on the part of the user. 

Figure 1.  This model, based on initial work on linking technologies and portals that Bill Mischo shared with the group, is used as a springboard for conceptualizing the technical infrastructure for enhancing access to the University of Illinois Library’s resources, both print and electronic. 

 The portal is comprised of three basic components:

1. The User Interface, where the user:

   1. Formulates a search query

   2. Browses available resources

2. The Functional level, where a number of “behind the scenes” operations take place:

   1. User is identified as a valid searcher (authorization)

   2. Search query is sent simultaneously to multiple databases

   3. Appropriate linking information is retrieved

   4. De-duplication of information in the results set is performed

   5. Results are presented to the user in a manageable form

3. The Content level, where multiple information resources are accessible (the OPAC, Abstracting and Indexing services, links to full-text commercial databases, etc.)

Technically the Content level exists outside the portal’s structure, but it is the object of the searching that is facilitated by the portal.  As outlined by Mischo et al., in the above

Figure 1, access to electronic and print resources involves the successful negotiation of several steps—the user’s search statement; user authorization; the execution of simultaneous search across disparate databases; and the activation of linking components that enable the user to link directly to the desired information resource(s).  There has been a considerable amount of energy in the profession (including local research through the DLI Partners program) devoted to the development of linking technologies, as well as the standards and protocols that facilitate the links from a journal citation to the appropriate licensed copy of the full text, from a journal title in the online catalog to its electronic counterpart, and from a citation within an article to the full text of the citation.[3]

Simply put, the portal exists to help link users with desired information in the most efficient and effective manner possible, regardless of the information source, form, format, or location. 

The Taskforce recommends that the Library identify the technologies and the software solutions (commercial and local) that will enable us to put into place a portal that will offer flexible information seeking options for our users.  It is unlikely that we would find all the functionality we desire in one software solution, but it is possible to identify likely scenarios to support reference linking, simultaneous search, and rough authorization technologies.  For this reason we may need to acquire or build portal capabilities as components (i.e., a commercial solution may provide the interface, linking technologies, and simultaneous search, but we may have to implement local authorization solutions).

The Taskforce is encouraged by the fact that commercial solutions to support the scholars portal concept are developing rapidly.  At the January 2002 Midwinter meeting of the American Library Association, Endeavor Information Systems announced two refined versions of their EnCompass software that show great promise for addressing the challenges of searching across multiple commercial databases, as well as searching across local and remote digital collections of various formats: 

For campuses that are looking for an option to deliver federated searching of licensed electronic resources, Endeavor offers ENCompass for Resource Access. ENCompass for Resource Access provides users with a single search to the library's licensed resources, other external web databases, and the OPAC. ENCompass for Resource Access expands access to the library's electronic resources using a multi-protocol approach including Z39.50, XML gateways and HTTP searching. ENCompass for Resource Access allows libraries to organize their collections in ways that meet campus needs, and ensures quick and easy set up for the library. (for more information, see: http://encompass.endinfosys.com/brochures/encompasssolutions.pdf) 

The completion of a mature version of the scholar’s portal is a dynamic and long-term goal that may require up to five years because some technologies are not mature enough to support all components of this plan. However, we are encouraged by the fact that there is strong interest (among the CIC consortium libraries and CIO’s) in developing robust authorization solutions that address academic institutions’ needs and accommodate publishers. 

Principles and Assumptions 

· The successful provision of intellectual access depends on the effective coordination of electronic and human resources. Well-designed online systems provide the functionality required for the discovery of information, but these systems depend upon the quality and completeness of the information. The heterogeneous information universe that users must navigate demands more effective integration or resources and unambiguous presentation of results 

· Users should be able to easily, and from one place, find information in the Library’s collections regardless of form (print or electronic) and format (monograph, journal, map, manuscript, etc) 

·  Access tools should be user-oriented, allowing for information discovery that reflects actual patterns and characteristics of information seeking behavior, economizes effort, and presents unambiguous and easily understandable results. 

· Users often need to negotiate both print and electronic resources in order to fulfill their information needs. 

· The Library may treat access to e-resources differently from access to print resources, but it is not the Library's intention to treat print and e-resources differentially (i.e., provide lower levels of access). The Library may provide an expedited path to e-resources through our online systems because of perceived user preference for e-resources, particularly full text. 

· Resources should be described in appropriate metadata (MARC, EAD, XML,) with the appropriate level of granularity for providing effective access.  

· Some level of redundancy in the representation of e-resources is recommended in order to increase the likelihood of retrieval, whether it be though the online catalog or other means, and that this overlap be coordinated at the portal level to present the most accurate information about a resource (in all of its instantiations) in a single comprehensible way to the user. 

V. Goals and Recommendations 

The vision articulated by the Taskforce is of an integrated information environment that facilitates the discovery and use of resources relevant to a user’s research. To realize this vision, we’ve drafted a set of goals, with accompanying recommendations on how to achieve them. They include: 1) implementing portal access architecture, multiple database searching, and a variety of linking technologies; 2) improving access to the Library’s physical collection by providing accurate and reliable records, with an appropriate level of metadata; 3)  improving access to the Library’s collection of digital resources by ensuring that these resources have the appropriate type and level of metadata to enable efficient, consistent, and reliable retrieval; 4)  providing integrated access to significant external digital collections; 5) facilitating access to  materials not currently available in our collection. 

The following section develops these goals and provides specific recommendations for achieving them:

Goal 1:  Create an integrated information environment by implementing aportal access architecture, multiple database searching, and a variety of linking technologies. 

Recommendation 1A: Identify the most effective technology solutions that will enable the implementation of a portal architecture for access to resources that the UIUC Library provides; determine what type of local development and support must be done to implement and continually improve this structure. 

Recommendation 1B:  Investigate and implement improved authorization technologies to simplify the process of user authentication and access to diverse local and commercial resources through the Library. 

Recommendation 1C:  Enable multiple repository searching by identifying technology products that execute a search simultaneously across multiple repositories, presenting the user with useful, intelligible result sets of citations to information in a variety of formats. 

Recommendation 1D:  Identify and implement technology solutions that will enable linking from one resource to another in a variety of contexts:  1) from citations within A & I services to the full text of the article; 2) from a citation to the journal title; and 3) from a citation in the full text of one article to the full text of the article represented in the citation. 

Goal 2: Improve access to the Library’s physical collection by providing accurate and reliable records, with an appropriate level of metadata, and in a timely manner, for all tangible materials (books, serials, maps, microforms, media, etc.) the Library has acquired.  

Recommendation 2A: Improve the quality of existing bibliographic records by developing and implementing a multi-year plan to convert MARCette records to full records. 

Recommendation 2B: Assess bibliographic/intellectual access to items with only collection-level access (e.g., unanalyzed series, collective titles such as the Serial Set) by identifying those that need direct access, i.e, a separate bibliographic record; those that can be found through print or online finding tools; and those for which a collection level record is sufficient.  

Recommendation 2C :  Follow up on plans to eliminate defined backlogs. Review existing plans, determine their feasibility, and revise if necessary.  

Recommendation 2D: Create policies and procedures that prevent or minimize the development of future backlogs, e.g., develop guidelines relating to the acceptance of gifts that ensures sufficient resources for providing bibliographic records in a timely manner, and analyze existing procedures that contribute to the formation of backlogs.  

Recommendation 2E: Increase the accessibility of tangible resources that are currently accessible primarily through local standalone databases (e.g, archives, sheet music, newspapers), by investigating metadata harvesting or cataloging at a collective title level. (e.g., University Archives’ Avery Brundage Collection). 

Recommendation 2F: For all items received, create a phased accessibility plan that will ensure minimal accessibility shortly after any item is received. The plan will define the minimal entry points for specific formats.  

Recommendation 2G: Aggressively seek grants and other funding sources to support record conversion efforts.

Goal 3: Improve access to the library’s available digital  resources by ensuring that these resources have the appropriate type and level of metadata to enable efficient, consistent, and reliable retrieval; implement linking solutions. 

Recommendation 3A: In the short term, examine the feasibility of expanding the Library’s e-resource registry to provide access to more classes of e-resources, including reference works, e-books, and non-licensed websites (e.g., sites linked from departmental webpages, such as the IFLA Directory of Art Libraries).  Note:  the next release of the Gateway, scheduled for Spring 2002, will provide this capability, as well as providing enhanced subject access to A&I and full-text databases.  

Recommendation 3B: Determine which electronic formats (e.g., e-journals, e-texts) should utilize MARC as a standard and purchase or produce MARC records as applicable; determine appropriate standards (e.g., Dublin Core, EAD, etc) for other digital manifestations (e.g., images, individual articles, etc). 

Recommendation 3C: Investigate the longterm feasibility of linking to an electronic version of an e-book or e-journal from the 856 field in the MARC record of the print version. 

Recommendation 3D: Make it easier for users to interpret a results set and quickly identify an electronic resource by adopting a “single record concept” (see Cornell’s OPAC) to represent multiple forms of the same work. This can be achieved through configuration of Endeavor’s sort and display functions. 

Recommendation 3E: Improve bibliographic/intellectual access to e-resources available in aggregator packages (e.g., Science Direct, Academic Universe), by investing in a commercial product such as Serials Solutions. (note: all potential solutions require that the Library provide the vendor with an accurate list of serial titles and holdings). 

Recommendation 3F: In the short term, improve bibliographic/intellectual access via the online catalog to individual book titles within aggregator packages (e.g., Early English Books Online) by creating a database registry of these titles and linking these as part of a search in which a user requests a book OR extract the metadata for the print counterparts of the e-books, and create provisional records (using a locally developed program), pointing to the persistent URL in the e-resource directory. 

Goal 4: Provide access to significant digital collections in the “hidden Web”, including local collections of digital objects that utilize different metadata schemes (e.g., digital images) as well as digital collections developed at other research institutions (e.g., LC’s American Memory Project). 

Background: There are two similar protocols that could be implemented to gain access to the content of these repositories—Z39.50, or Open Archives Initiative (OAI).  Z39.50 involves search and retrieval components and requires significant technical work and it requires that institutions agree to implement Z39.50 (e.g., the CIC Virtual Electronic Library).  OAI, still in the experimental phase, does not require such an intensive technical investment because it involves the owning institution making available for harvest their repository records in a common scheme (Dublin Core simple).  One institution acts as a harvesting service and harvests the data from the OAI sites into a single repository, providing a simple search interface that enables the user to execute a search across the aggregated data, with links back to the original source at the home institution. UIUC Library and University of Michigan are collaborating to implement the OAI protocol, and numerous other CIC academic libraries are joining this group.  

Recommendation 4A: Investigate the feasibility of providing integrated access through a Library Portal to the contents of local and external e-resource databases such as the American Verse Project, University of Illinois Archives Finding Aids, and image databases, which now exist as standalone databases embedded within the Gateway, by testing the Open Archives Initiative metadata harvesting protocol. Test the efficacy of the Open Archives Initiative protocol (OAI) for the provision of access to collections of digital objects that use different metadata schema.  OAI is simple in design, and less labor-intensive than the implementation of Z39.50. If OAI host sites implemented the OAI protocol, UIUC Library could “harvest” information about these titles and deliver that as part of a “meta” search, something that would most likely extend beyond the search structure of the OPAC, probably residing in the top-level portal area of the UIUC system.  

Goal 5: Facilitate access to materials not currently available in our collection. 

Recommendation 5A: A long-term—and ideal—solution is to integrate into the online catalog search process the ability to request both books and articles we don’t have, including the ability to screen requests if desired, authenticate users, and automatically populate forms with bibliographic data. To this end, we recommend maximizing the use of ILLIAD, particularly through the Voyager OPAC. 

Recommendation 5B: A short-term goal solution to exiting the OPAC to place an interlibrary loan request involves adding an IRRC link to the OPAC. Technical considerations with our current system, however, require placing this link on just the initial search page, not the results page. 

Recommendation 5C: Facilitate currently available options for unmediated requests (e.g., CIC/VEL, WorldCat).  

VI. Infrastructure Issues 

In order to move forward with the work that is involved in building an integrated access model, significant infrastructure issues within the Library must be addressed. These include: 

1.  Improve coordination within the Library: The Library currently has several units and/or individuals who play a potential role in the development of improved access mechanisms, including the Associate University Librarian for Information Technology Planning and Policy, the Systems Office, Cataloging, the Digital Imaging and Media Technology Initiative, Electronic Information Resources Committee, the Gateway Design Taskforce, the Digital Library Initiative, the Library Information Technology Committee, and others. Better coordination and communication must be established between these groups in order to avoid duplicative (or contradictory) efforts and move the Library forward.   

2. Invest in portal development: Investigate commercial and local solutions to the development of the Library portal as the point of access to information in all forms and formats. We recommend that a small group including representatives from Systems and the LIT, be appointed in the short-term to outline the overall plan of phased development, and to begin work on identifying and implementing practical solutions. Current research into linking technologies as well as the use of disparate metadata formats points irreversibly to the need for the Library to invest greater staff and financial resources into some aspects of local portal/gateway development.  However, recent breakthroughs by vendors such as Endeavor (their EnCompass software product) suggest that there is successful and effective implementation of functionalities that are high on our list, including simultaneous search of multiple databases, use of the OpenURL standard for linking to the appropriate copy of an item where the standard has been implemented by a publisher; translation of queries through the use of XML gateways constructed by publishers to obtain access to appropriate copies of full-text materials; rough-grained authorization technologies.  

3. Develop metadata best practices and policy to improve its production: Designate a Metadata working group to advise on appropriate metadata schemes to provide access to materials in all formats. It is neither feasible nor desirable to provide access to all resources through our online catalog. The MARC format is appropriate for the provision of access to many, but not all classes of materials. Other standard metadata schemes exist and ought to be implemented (EAD—Encoding for Archival Description, TEI—Text Encoding Initiative, Dublin Core). The Library needs to establish policy and guidelines for the use of appropriate standard metadata schemes for access to different classes of materials. We must identify ways in which Technical Services, Systems, and Library staff who are producing non-MARC metadata can interact to produce, support, and maintain rich and useful metadata that enhances access to materials. The group should also develop cross-walks (templates are available) from specific metadata schemes to more general schemes to facilitate searching across collections that utilize different native metadata formats, and to economize on the metadata production process. 

4. Staff training: UIUC Library faculty and staff need to become conversant with these technologies, enough so that we have a basic understanding of what is needed in order to make meaningful connections, for example, from a citation for a journal article to its full-text, and back to the MARC record for a journal title.  

5. Outreach/Instruction: Provide users with the fundamental concepts of information literacy so that they can become more effective consumers of information. The Library also needs to partner with groups on campus who are supporting online course development in order to insure that students who utilize online courses understand how to obtain access to the resources held by the Library in addition to or in lieu of e-resources to which they may link directly from their online course modules.

 6. Measurement and evaluation: Develop ways to evaluate the effectiveness of our access mechanisms through studies of user behavior, satisfaction, and success. 

7. Partnerships: Investigate cooperative projects and grants with other organizations; continue participation in initiatives such as the Digital Library Federation.

 VII. Implementation Strategy

Clearly the implementation of such an ambitious plan will require the combined efforts, intellects, and passions of the entire library staff.  Having recognized this fact, how will we realize this future of seamlessly linked resources, and intellectual and physical access to all of our collections, as well as to resources beyond our walls? This report is offered as a proposal for achieving this goal, recognizing, however that while we have a concept now of what the future state of access at UIUC may look like, there will invariably occur developments in technology that will alter details and even the entire concept of this vision. Some of the recommendations involve specific units or people in the Library. The AULS, in their coordinating roles, will ensure that the proposed implementation plan specifically identifies individuals, identified by their functional roles, to implement the plan. We propose the following strategy for implementation: 

1.  Present the Access Taskforce to the Administrative Council for discussion and approval, with appropriate feedback and input from Divisions.

2. Appoint the Associate University Librarians as an Implementation Planning Group that will  coordinate the implementation of the various recommendations.  To fulfill this role, the AULs will convene an Access Forum within 60 days of the approval of these recommendations in order to present a plan for implementation. 

The plan will include an evaluation component to ensure accountability and completion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jo Kibbee, Chair
Bob Burger
Kevin Butterfield
Sharon Clark
Mary Mallory
Aart Olsen
Chris Prom
Beth Sandore
Rebecca Smith
Leslie Troutman
David Ward
Cherie Weible 

In addition, the following Resource Group provided consultation:

Alvan Bregman
Tim Cole
Barb Henigman
Bill Mischo
Peggy Steele
Paula Watson 

3/19/02
 

Appendix I:

Review of previous and ongoing work at UIUC including consideration of the following:

Cataloging Backlog Report: www.library.uiuc.edu/techserv/backlogreport.htm

Cataloging Taskforce Report: www.library.uiuc.edu/techserv/catalogprocessreport.htm

Serials Retrocon Taskforce Report: www.library.uiuc.edu/techserv/retroreport.html

EIRC Collections Plan: www.library.uiuc.edu/eirc/finaldraft.htm

Library Information Technology Committee Strategic Plan for Coordinating Digital Library Initiatives:

www.library.uiuc.edu/Committee/InformationTechnology/DLIPlan.htm

Library Strategic Plan: www.library.uiuc.edu/committe/strategicplanning/reports/jan00report.htm#Summary

We also reviewed discussions of  “state of the art” access to digital resources represented by peer institutions and national organizations, including:

Digital Library Federation: www.diglib.org

Bibliographic Control of Web Resources: A Library of Congress Action Plan:

lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/bibcontrol/draftplan.html

ARL Scholar’s Portal: http://www.arl.org/access/scholarsportal/index.html

Report of the Task Group on Intellectual Access for the Digital Library (U of Chicago)

www.lib.uchicago.edu/StaffInfo/TaskGroups/tgia/tgiareport.htm

Library Information Technology Planning Task Force ( U of Michigan) www.lib.umich.edu/staff/committees/litptf/index.html

Vendor sites we reviewed include:

CrossRef: www.crossref.org/

SFX: www.sfxit.com/

Serials Solutions: www.serialssolution.com/

Endeavor: www.endinfosys.com/

Encompass: encompass.endinfosys.com/