January 19, 2012
TEI Manuscript Project
WRHS MANUSCRIPT PROJECT
Dublin Core (DC) and MODS Templates:
Dublin Core Examples:
MODS Examples:
Useful Resources
• Whittlesey, Charles W. Early history of Cleveland, Ohio, including papers and other matter relating to the adjacent country. AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE BOOKS
• The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History: http://ech.cwru.edu/
• Whittlesey, Charles W. Early history of Cleveland, Ohio, including papers and other matter relating to the adjacent country. AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE BOOKS
• Library of Congress Subject Headings
• Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN)
October 19, 2011
Intro to Digital Humanities Class
Presentation is at:
Introduction to Digital Humanities, Part 1 (PDF)
July 18, 2011
June 2011 statistics
The June 2011 cataloging statistics for Kelvin Smith Library are available at:
June 2011 Cataloging (MS Excel file)
June 21, 2011
notes from Northern Ohio Tech Services Librarians Program
Here are my notes from the Spring 2011 Northern Ohio Tech Services Librarians Program, "You Can't Always Get What They Want -- or Can You? Patron Driven Acquisitions"
1.
Suzanne Ward, Purdue University
trueswell, richard (1969). 80 percent of use from 20 percent of collection.
ILL issue
michael roberts and kenneth cameron (1984). Study found that ILL is ordering stuff in print, not "weird" stuff. Material should be bought based on requests.
Purdue bought material in part based on ILL requests over the span of a year.
[but, don't coll. mngrs. have expertise to purchase some stuff that may be relevant regardless of use?]
prichard study (1980). patron-purchased requests circulated somewhat better than those by cll. mngrs.
s. ward. Instead of getting book for patron via ILL, buy the book, based on particular criteria (see slide) [why "in English"? Why only in last 5 years?]
[what affect did this have on cataloging dept?]
just-in-case coll. development vs. just-in-time coll. development
e-books
OPAC. Some print books have icon, saying that if you want this, click here. To get e-version
Form task force: ref., coll mngrs, acq., cataloging
QUESTIONS:
assessment
-- ebooks sometimes don't have call nos.
usage stats. -- vendor provides these.
dealing with records. Those not purchased need their records removed. Need batch process.
resource sharing issue -- look into consortial purchases.
pda vs. subscription packages
2.
Peter Spitzform, Univ. of Vermont
--use YBP
--just in time collecting
--load marc records from 3 vendors for material they do _not_ own. If ordered, get book to patron within 3 working days
--record says "order on demand". And "request this book" icon, which opens a form, including: name, how soon they need book. If book not at YBP, rush-ordered at Amazon or BandN.
--first 5 min free, then short-term loan after 5 minutes that bills library. With 3rd click, book is purchased automatically
--how to delete those not purchased
--ebook records. those not in e format, they get print version
--print books directly from ybp.
--deduping -- match point.
--short term loan goes to patron's account.
--acq. For print, from "request this book," acq. gets an email. They check GOBI, then set up the order. Upon receiving, rush process the book. For ebooks, acq. does nothing. Marc record has to be changed, but acq does nothing. For short-term loan, YBP invoices them. Acq distributes funds across disciplines.
--ebooks for multiple simultaneous users. Ebrary and EBL have this capacity.
--to expedite a purchase, a user doesn't need to click 3 times. The user can contact the library directly, via "recommend book" function on web site.
--survey question asks: would you prefer to have had this ebook in print form on the shelves?
3.
Cheryl Engel
--did you read portlandia
--use of overdrive has increased dramatically in last 12 mo.
--present ebook content from credo ref, gale virtual ref library, overdrive, oxford ref.
--traditional model predominates. But, 2,000 titles each yr. based on requests.
--153 selectors. De-centralized in selection
--lack of shareability a factor
--negotiating pts.
-- how many times can the book be viewed/used before it is bought
-- cost per purchase
-- publisher restrictions (number of uses). Involves retention factor, getting multiple copies for popular books, etc.
-- initial collection composition (custom profile, subject selected, vendor package)
-- metrics for add'l copies AND cost of add'l copies
--monitor back orders, how long it takes to get stuff (sends info to vendors of other vendors' time if vendor is slow)
--should a selector look at title a patron has requested before purchasing it? Do PDA fit collection policy?
--baker and taylor, and ingram are 2 major vendors. She plays them against each other.
--3-month cycle. e.g. things not picked up returned then.
--price for add'l copies
--publisher restrictions.
--complications
-- mixing and matching complexity.
-- multiple vendors
-- shelf life
-- weeding
--records need marc records
June 10, 2011
May 2011 Statistics
The Cataloging statistics for May 2011 are available at:
May 2011 Statistics (MS Excel file)
May 18, 2011
Notes from Ohio Valley Group Tech Services Librarians Conference 2011
OVGTSL 2011 Conference (Oxford, OH)
Several interesting, thought-provoking sessions. I with Stephanie Church and Suzhen Chen presented on "TEI Projects in Technical Services."
Keynote speakers were Karen Coyle and Susan Gibbons. Click here for Karen Coyle's presentation (and others)
Susan Gibbons. "Time Horizon 2020: Library Renaissance." University librarian, Yale
Cornell: 55 percent of monogrtaphs published since 1990 had not circulated. At Rochester, 46 percent.
-- does not mean one should cut budget (e.g. build collections, used but not circulated, etc)
-- patron-driven acquisitions. Merge ILL and acq. From user perspective, makes sense.
-- eBook purchase through use. Based on use, purchase made. Debate: what constitutes a true use.
-- SUNY Geneseo: "Getting It System Toolkit" (GIST). When a request comes through, if to ILL, ILL asks if book is already freely available on web, then tells patron. If not, do we have it, or is it at a nearby institution. If neither, consider purchasing. Factors: cost of book, etc. Decision tree. If faculty, definitely buy; if student, examine it. Decision tree is the factor, not librarian. Rochester tried this, but had customized ILLiad to be similar to this. They rush-order, and do NOT catalog it. They get it to the user, and catalog it once it's returned. --> ILL and Acquisitions. Collection Management 35:3-4
-- Just-in-time. Print on demand. Espresso machine. 300-page book in less than 4 minutes. But, expensive and huge machines. Publishers intrigued by this; saves them money (rather than print 500 books, for example, that don't get used and then sent back). Publishers can also take more risks. Espresso machine currently $100K, but this may change over next 5-10 years.
Problem of buying same book repeatedly. True of serials in particular. Elsevier, Wiley, for example. Examine how much money is spent on same material.
false dichotomy -- paper vs. ebook. Different types of uses and research. E.g. Wordle. Creates word cloud. Textual analysis is doable for scholars thanks to e-version of book. Etexts may bring readers back to print versions.
Repositories. Physical. Cost of volumes on shelf approx 5 dollars (see UMich). How many copies is enough? How trustworthy are the digital copies? How do you determine what the "master" physical copy is? Etc. OCLC help may be needed.
-- Models: 5 Colleges (Mt. Holyoke, UMass, Smith, Hampshire, Amherst); Cornell and Columbia; Triangle Research Libraries (Duke, UNC, NCSU).
Institutional repositories.
-- download counts as meaningful indicator.
-- open access mandates.
-- At Rochester, all ETDs. White papers, conference papers, tech reports that do not make it to a publishing stream are welcome in the institutional repository. For published material, embargo system. Long-term preservation commitment. Music scores are being put in institutional repository. Things uniquely owned, in other words. Faculty have asked for download counts of their material for tenure purposes. Faculty data welcome into repository.
Yale open access mandate. No charges for open access material (just wants credit).
Cornell DataStar project. Repository of data sets. Day a grant is written, librarian should be involved. Document decisions along the creation process. Final data set needs to be the most useful. See also Johns Hopkins and Purdue
Academic Analytics. They document who are the most productive faculty at your university. They look at grant dollars, citations, number of publications, awards, etc. This data is compiled and used as a tool. Dangerous, in Gibbons's opinion, because some libraries already may do this, and potential political landmine. Provosts and administrators are paying attention to this, though.
-- Use institutional repository for unique university material, not so much for material that has already been published.
Summary:
-- cooperative everything.
-- more focus on institutional metadata and assets.
-- user-centric
-- user-driven
May 10, 2011
April 2011 statistics
The cataloging statistics for April 2011 are now available at:
April 2011 Cataloging (MS Excel file)