2011 Special Libraries Association Conference

Michael Fernandez

Content Buying: Content Aggregationor Disaggregation

Librarians, publishers, and vendors comprised the audience for thispresentation, which took the format of an open-ended discussion.Moderating the discussion was Randall Marcinko (CEO, MarcinkoEnterprises, Inc.) who introduced himself by describing the workhis company does to act as a go-between in negotiations withlibraries and publishers. He opened the discussion by definingcontent aggregation as the process of a publisher making theircontent available from multiple sites and vendors; conversely,disaggregation is the process whereby a publisher makes contentexclusively available only in one place, typically from the publisher'sWeb site. Why disaggregation? Marcinko said that the majorityof publishers he spoke to told him it was necessary to continuepublishing their products. Faced with the prospect of cuttingproducts, the publishers decided to make their content exclusive inorder to generate more revenue. Polling the librarians in theaudience, Marcinko asked if any were forced to drop titles due toprice increases from publishers making their content exclusive; anumber of hands were raised. One librarian in the audienceresponded that her library would continue to purchase exclusivecontent from publishers for titles that were essential to the collec-tion; however, less vital mid-level titles would often get droppedin the same scenario. Several other librarians acknowledgeddoing this as well; more than one audience member referred to itas “Darwinism,” a means by which weaker titles were weeded, orpriced out of the collection.

Another widely discussed topic was “by the drink” pricing, or apay-per-view model for accessing content. Many librarians in theaudience said that their institutions have been using this patron-driven acquisitions model of pay-per-view access. One librarian saidher institution experienced success buying article token packagesfrom vendors, whereby tokens are purchased up front that allowedusers to view articles; this model allowed the library to budget for acertain number of article tokens based on patron usage of resources.In general, the audience was receptive to the pay-per-view modeland gave mostly positive feedback about it. By comparison, whenMarcinkoasked themaboutdocumentdelivery services, themajorityof the audience said they preferred pay-per-view, as it was often aless expensive option. Marcinko asked the audience what theythought of a time-based model, wherein a library could purchase ablock of time in which they could have unlimited access to articles.This received an overwhelmingly negative response; as oneaudiencemember said, he wants to buy content, not be “on the clock.”

Directly addressing the content buyers in the audience, Marcinkoasked them what their “wish-list” was for vendors and publishers.Several wanted to see less bundling of titles into packages, the so-called “Big Deal,”which forces institutions to pay for titles they maynot need in order to access the ones they do. Another repeatedsuggestion was the desire for more publishers to make their con-tent searchable through discovery services. One area of consensusbetween the different groups in the audiencewas that buyerswouldbe willing to pay more if sellers offered them value-added content.Examples included different types of content, such as audio andvideo, and greater content usability, such as the ability to downloaddatasets into spreadsheets. In his concluding remarks, Marcinkoemphasized the importance of the buyer/publisher/vendor dialogue

and his hope that future forums similar to this could continue thediscussion.

RDA Overview

Judith Kuhagen (senior cataloging policy specialist, Library ofCongress) gave a thorough and information-filled presentation onthe impending transition to the RDA (Resource Description andAccess) cataloging standard. The presentation was particularlytimely, as it was given the same day that an official announcementwas made regarding RDA's implementation. Kuhagen began withan overview on the history of RDA. In response to the flaws in thedecades old AACR2 standard, RDA was developed to be optimizedfor the digital environment. It can be used to describe all types ofcontent and media, and RDA records are usable on the Web and innext generation OPACs. Kuhagen next gave a detailed descriptionof the FRBR (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records)entity-relationship models that structure RDA. She also delvedinto changes in vocabulary, mapping AACR2 terms to their RDAcounterparts.

After giving an overview of RDA, Kuhagen proceeded to describethe testing of RDA in the U.S. that has been done over the past fewyears. In 2008, the three major national libraries (Library ofCongress, National Library of Medicine, National AgriculturalLibrary) agreed to undertake a full testing of RDA before makinga joint implementation decision. A comprehensive set of criteriawas established to determine the feasibility of RDA not onlygenerally, but also technically and financially. A number of otherinstitutions also participated in the testing process. Kuhagen gave atimeline of the process; the main part of the testing and analysiswas done in late 2010/early 2011. In the announcement issued theday of this presentation, the three national libraries recommendedthat RDA be adopted, with certain conditions, and that implemen-tation occur no sooner than 2013.1

Kuhagen wrapped up her presentation by advising everyone inthe audience of theneed toprepare forRDA, regardless ofwhether ornot their library was implementing it. She recommended reviewingavailable trainingmaterials and documentation, aswell as becomingfamiliar with the RDA Toolkit. Equally important, stressed Kuhagen,waspreparing colleagues, aswell as library users, all ofwhomwill beimpacted by RDA.

Update on Technical Standards for Librariesand Information

The first speaker wasMarjorie Hlava (president, Access Innovations,Inc.) who described the need for standards. As she explained,standards save money, accelerate projects, make better solutions,andprotect investments.Hlava thendiscussed the ISO (InternationalOrganization for Standardization) and their procedures for devel-oping standards. International standardization is a lengthy andintricate process; it is quite common for industry groups to set theirown standards long before international standards are reached.Hlava then gave a brief overviewof recent ISO standards pertinent toinformation professionals. Following that, she touched upon currentstandards work being done by the IETF (Internet EngineeringTask Force), W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), and the Libraryof Congress.

The second speaker at the session was Todd Carpenter(managing director, NISO). Carpenter introduced NISO (NationalInformation Standards Organization), giving an outline of the workthey do to develop and publish standards in the United States. Heidentified the core groups comprising NISO's membership:publishers, automation vendors, and libraries. Carpenter noted

Blythe / Serials Review 37 (2011) 305–314

313

that libraries were the smallest group, comprising 25 percent ofNISO's membership; he underscored the importance of librarianstaking a more active role in standards development. He then wenton to describe NISO's organizational structure, identifying currentcommittees andworking groups. As Carpenter noted, NISOhasmoreprojects currently underway than at any time in its history.

Carpenter next turned his focus to e-books and related stan-dardization issues. He described EPUB 3, the latest revision ofthe EPUB file format. EPUB has already been widely adopted as ane-book format, and EPUB 3 is expected to be applied to a greaterrange of content, includingmagazines and journals.2 Although thiswill significantly enhance the capability of the EPUB format,Carpenter envisions a host of potential questions regarding e-bookstandards. As an example, he cited the potential for a multitudeof ISBN numbers to identify one work; a possible case is differentelectronic formats (PDF, HTML) receiving unique ISBNs, in addi-tion to print formats (hardcover, softcover, print on demand) alsohaving their own. Another issue Carpenter brought up was theeffect of e-books on page numbering. While print books havedefinite page numbers, e-books are far more nebulous in thisregard, as text can be resized on an electronic reading device. Forexample, an e-book with 500 pages in the default text size couldgrow to 1500 pages if the text is resized; this would be problematicfor citing the work.

Another issue currently being addressed by NISO is that ofsupplemental journal article materials. Supplemental materialscan be anything an author submits for publication along with thearticle. Common examples are videos, algorithms, and datasets.Carpenter described an exponential growth in the submission ofsupplemental materials. One journal he cited went from having noarticles with supplemental materials in 1999 to 87 percent ofarticles having supplemental materials in 2009. NISO, in tandemwith the National Federation of Advanced Information Services(NFAIS), is working to develop a recommended practice forpublisher inclusion, handling, display, and preservation of supple-mental materials.3

Community pressure can play a large part in the success of astandard. As anexample, Carpenter cited SUSHI (StandardizedUsageStatistics Harvesting Initiative), which has been widely adoptedand is synchronized with COUNTER (Counting Online Usage ofNetworked Electronic Resources); many licenses and contracts nowrequire publishers to make their electronic resources COUNTERcompliant. Cost savings and simplification is another factor inthe success of a standard. SERU (Shared Electronic Resource Under-standing) has been implemented by over 150 libraries and fiftypublishers because it obviates the hassle of prolonged contractnegotiations for both sides. In contrast, Carpenter noted thatONIX-PL (ONIX for Publications Licenses) has not progressed far.This lack of success may be attributed to the language of licensesbeing ambiguous by nature and therefore difficult to express in anXML format.

All of Your Copyrights Are Ours: ScholarlyCommunication and Open Access in the21st Century

In her presentation, Dorothea Salo (research services librarian,University of Wisconsin-Madison) explained how the current

copyright landscape affects libraries. She noted some recent devel-opments that had troubling implications for libraries. One ofthese was the decision by HarperCollins to limit the number oftimes their e-book titles can be lent to twenty-six, thereby forcinglibraries to purchase themagain once this number of loans has beenexceeded. A lawsuit filed in 2008 against Georgia State Universityby three major academic publishers may also have major ram-ifications on libraries. In the suit, the publishers alleged that onlinesharing of copyrightedmaterial through electronic course reservesconstitutedunauthorized distribution. The casewent to trial inMay2011 and a ruling has yet to be reached as of thiswriting. A decisionin favor of the publishers would potentially have a widespreadimpact on all libraries in regard to sharing copyrighted scholarlymaterial. In this current climate, Salo warned, the concept of fair usehas become endangered.

Salo countered this bleak appraisal with some burgeoningpositive developments. One potential advance was the growth ofCOPE (Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity). By signingthis compact, universities and other institutions pledge them-selves to “the timely establishment of durable mechanisms forunderwriting reasonable publication charges for articles writtenby its faculty and published in fee-based open-access journals”that other institutions would not have to pay for.4 Salo describeda few other promising open access projects. The University ofMichigan is undertaking a project to make digital copies of itsorphan works, copyrighted books whose copyright holders cannotbe identified, available to the university community. The projectis being funded by HathiTrust, a partnership of major researchinstitutions, with the potential for other partner institutions todevelop similar policies.5 Another positive development was thedecision by the Association of College and Research Libraries tomake their journal, College & Research Libraries, open access as ofApril 2011.

Salo concluded by urging librarians to take a more active advo-cacy stance for open access. She emphasized the need to standup to copyright holders, rather than act as the enforcers ofcopyright policy. If institutions are truly interested in open access,Salo stressed that it will require a financial commitment on theirpart.

Notes

1. U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee, “Executive Summary: Report andRecommendations of the U.S. RDA Test Coordinating Committee,” (June 13,2011), http://www.loc.gov/bibliographic-future/rda/rda-execsummary-public-13june11.pdf (accessed July 15, 2011).

2. International Digital Publishing Forum, “EPUB 3 Overview,” (May 23, 2011),http://idpf.org/epub/30/spec/epub30-overview.html (accessed July 15, 2011).

3. NISO/NFAIS Supplemental Journal Article Materials Project, http://www.niso.org/workrooms/supplemental (accessed July 15, 2011).

4. Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity, http://www.oacompact.org/(accessed July 15, 2011).

5. Orphan Works Project, http://www.lib.umich.edu/orphan-works (accessedJuly 15, 2011).

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.09.004

Blythe / Serials Review 37 (2011) 305–314

314