Nov 12, 2010
CAPT Meeting Notes 11/10/2010
3:00 PM – Main Library 428
Tom Teper, Lynne Wiley, Michael Norman, Tim Cole, Beth Woodard, Robert slater, Scott Walter, Bill Mischo
Reviewed the new charge and membership.
We plan to have agenda’s posted/sent out at least 24 hours in advance of each CAPT meeting.
Robert will take meeting notes and make sure they are posted in a timely manner to the CAPT Committee web site.
We need to poll our librarians about the types of materials they’d like to provide online access to, with the understanding that achieving their goals make take a year or two, while analyzing the new integrated library systems/web discovery systems. This is a key decision about what is really the library’s public face.
We still need to get in touch with Illinois state to see how well the z39.50 integration of the library catalog with the EBSCO discovery product.
Even if we evaluate all the next gen discovery systems and decide that none of them meet our needs, we need to stay abreast of updates and changes to these systems.
We’ve seen from our feedback on vufind versus the voyager catalog interface that there is a clear distinction between how faculty view vufind (generally negative) versus students (generally positive).
The issue before us is how does the library get in front of the change that is coming that we may not be able to avoid- the emergence of a new catalog and possibly a new discovery system.
There may need to be a frank discussion about the value of the I-share catalog (which so far has locked us in to Voyager as a catalog) versus limitations on how we can modify the user experience.
CAPT is limited in that we can point out problems with the current catalog (and related interfaces) but we can’t effectively mandate a new catalog.
The move to electronic books, new access model (like Patron Driven Access) and limited budgets affecting how much new print materials I-Share libraries are adding taken together has significantly reduced the impact/value of the I-Share system for our users. This last year, for the first time, we became even on our borrowing from I-share (equal borrowing and lending through the system).
For a future meeting, we’ll look at some statistics on our I-share borrowing.
Another issue: changes to the ORR. Should it be fixed, or decommissioned (and use directed to the SFX a-z list). Some of the major stakeholders have indicated they’d like to see ORR be retired over the summer. Right now we can’t include A&I services in the SFX A-Z tool. With the upcoming version of SFX, we will (or so we’ve been told) be able to include both A&I services and E-Books. This will be a January meeting item (if we have it been then) or a February meeting item.
The group needs an update on the status of the bibliographic tools (BibLeaves/BibBuilder), as well as contentDM.
We’ll invite Sarah Shreeves to come and present to the group information about the conference she recently attended about CDL.
If it’s a question of helping people load content/collections into some of our current systems, then it should come to CAPT. If it’s a request for implementing a new system, it goes to ITPRWG.
Robert has an agenda item for next month for the group to look at mobile device detection and redirection for some pages on www.library.illinois.edu (that have mobile equivalents).
For some time in the Spring- some discussion of use/access in Hathi Trust. We have some limitations with CARLI right now (a max of 3000 recrods loaded per night). It took us four months to load the 18th Century Online records. There are 780,000 Hathi records. Thus far, our approach has been to add a separate record for items that “we” digitized (or had digitized for us) and only placing links to the other Hathi content within the print version’s record. There are about 7 million items in Hathi, and we have print copies of about 3.5 million of those items.
We need to put out very wide calls for comments on these major issues that we are considering. Draft reports of sub-groups being circulated might be a more effective then just asking for input about a system/service in general.
Upon closer consideration, we decided we want to keep the Voyager Performance Issues and the I-share usage in two separate working groups.
Before forming this group, we’d like to add on to this charge a request they collect and analyze data on I-Share lending/borrowing.
How will this group interact with the Law Library. Do we need to invite a representative from there to be included on this working group.
As amended to include this membership: Susan Duncan, Peggy Steele, Janet Weber, Lynn Wiley, we approve the creation of this working group.
We are concerned that this bulk load will actually create a great deal of work for us. There is also a question of how much this would increase the load on ILL. Can we have the records loaded but then suppress the display until we are ready for them (the borrowing issues). We need more information about this before we can make a decision on this. Tom, Lynne, and Beth W will collect some additional information and report it at the next CAPT meeting.