ARLIS Roundtable 2009

RLG Programs

RLG ProgramsARLIS Round Table

Günter Waibel, Program OfficerDennis Massie, Program Officer

OCLC Research

RLG Programs Waibel & Massie

RLG Round Table ARLIS 2009

2

Welcome!

1. Welcome & Slogan of the day (Günter)2. Print Journals

Should they stay or should they go? (Dennis)3. Museum Data Exchange

Will these records play nicely in our sandbox? (Günter)

4. Archival Steering CommitteePushing the acid-free envelope (Dennis)

5. Library, archive and museum collaborationBeyond the Silos of the LAMs (Günter)

6. Round Robin Round-Up! (Amy Lucker, NYU)

eating

talking

marveling

Agenda You



3

Change we can believe in!



4

Print JournalsShould they stay or should they go?



5

Shared Print Collections

Four core projects in FY09 Journals preservation project – managing risk MARC 583 for print archiving – core infrastructure Regional collection of record – model agreements De-accessioning print working group – shared strategies

Advisory Group Shared Print Coordinating Committee – 11 partners

Working Groups Prospective Journals Preservation - 9 partners Regional Collection of Record - 4 partners De-accessioning print back-files - 13 partners

Future of Collections Discussion Group - 120 partners



6

Outcomes and Impact: FY09

Shared Print policy report Synthesized available evidence base for library mgt

Prospective journals preservation Modeling cooperative management of at-risk serials

Shared infrastructure for distributed mgt Immediately deployable infrastructure supports

‘anonymous’ participation

De-acccessioning print backfiles Identified key obstacles to downsizing redundant

holdings



7

Birth of DAP-J

Grew out of conversations begun at the RLG Programs Shared Print Collections Summit, November 2007

Imagined the path from mostly print collections to mostly digital collections

Wondered why more libraries aren’t clearing shelf space by deaccessioning JSTOR print backfiles

Or, if this is being done widely, why we don’t hear more about it

Asked ourselves: “If not in this situation, when?” Inspired by experience of UKRR: “Just bin it!” Formed group to seek out low-hanging fruit



8

Enter: An Intrepid Band of Fruit Hunters

ARL Columbia University Indiana University New York University University of Arizona University of Michigan

Medium Academic Binghamton University

Liberal Arts College Swarthmore College

Museum Brooklyn Museum Frick Collection Metropolitan Museum Museum of Modern Art

Special Library U of Pennsylvania Law

Legal Depository Trinity College Dublin



9

Some Obstacles to Deaccessioning

Legal deposit libraries are very limited in what they can discard

Public institutions cannot divest themselves of state assets

Law libraries need access to original paper copies for citation checking

Cost data for discard vs. store not available when space needed

So print journal backfiles moved to offsite storage Where they are now shelved by size So that discarding them has become prohibitively

expensive



10

Don’t these collections then become de facto archives?

These libraries have made a tacit commitment to keeping these materials.

Are there natural groupings of keepers and divestors?

Can we build equitable relationships between them?



11

More Obstacles to Deaccessioning

We lack the infrastructure to record and disclose retention commitments

We lack the network-level policy framework and business model to support keeper-divestor relationships

We lack consensus that deaccessioning print journal backfiles is the right thing to do right now

Storage is relatively cheap Until that changes it’s easier not to deaccession



12

Two Competing Objectives (per Bob Wolven) Defining conditions that will ensure long-

term retention of journal backfiles on a national or international level Or: How can we assure that as libraries cancel

print and deaccession backfiles, enough copies will be retained?

Defining conditions that will make it easier for libraries to realize the potential space/cost savings from deaccessioning journal backfiles Or: What comfort level is needed for libraries to

make these decisions?



13

Groping Toward Linking the Two Objectives

First Principles: Action happens locally, for local reasons Group action will begin in already-formed groups

of natural partners

How to encourage, support, and link up group efforts toward a coherent global picture?

How does this relate to the commonly-seen straw man where the few who retain are paid by the many who divest?



14

Even More Obstacles to Deaccessioning

We lack confidence: that digital versions will persist that 2 or 3 dark archives are sufficient in validation of dark archives that there is sufficient duplication of print

holdings in the network in the condition of non-archived print backfiles that images are of sufficient quality in digital

versions

It’s hard to throw good stuff away.



15

A Microcosm of the Library Environment?

To what extent are you deaccessioning print journal backfiles? 1 routinely, 6 dabbling, 2 have plans, 5 have no plans

You have access to the data you need in order to deaccession print journal backfiles with confidence. 1 strongly agree, 6 agree, 3 neutral, 3 disagree

We need to seriously rethink processes for print serials check-in. 4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 6 neutral, 1 disagree

What is the most important element needed to reconcile the urge to act according to local need with aspirations for building a cooperative future? 3 infrastructure, 6 policy framework, 3 funding, 2 central

coordination



16

How To Make a Low-Hanging Fruit Salad

Identify core data elements needed in hand in order to make responsible retention or discarding decisions 1

Gather the actual data 4 Identify sampling tasks to shed light on hard-to-address

areas such as validation and optimal duplication 0 Actually do the sampling tasks 6 Produce a list of obstacles to discarding print backfiles of

dual-format journals and how to overcome them 3 Decide what level of assurance is “good enough” 1 Create a manifesto challenging current thought and

behavior regarding shared print 1 Implement a deaccessioning project 1 Create a decision matrix for various scenarios



17

Journals Preservation Project

Risk-aware approach to print preservation: where is cooperative action most needed, most likely to deliver value?

‘At risk’ scholarly journals in the humanities with print-only distribution channel and aggregate WorldCat holdings <50

Model costs and workflows for distributed print archiving of long tail print resources

230+ title sample; estimated 10,000 print-only refereed journals



18

Sample and Method

230+ title sample Median holdings per title = 24 libraries Median holdings per title in pilot group = 2 Average age of publication = 27 years 42% English language publications

Approach Titles assigned for review within project group Coverage and condition of local holdings

assessed Commitment to retain/serve or transfer recorded Time to completion noted



19

Preliminary Findings

Approx. 40% of titles reviewed are held in their entirety by the assigned institution

Approx. 30% of titles are <50% complete at assigned institution

Local burden for light-weight validation is relatively modest, approx. 15 minutes/title

Pilot participants are prepared to declare archiving commitment for selected titles

Relatively low cost of titles makes ongoing acquisitions a low-risk proposition



20

Journals Project - current status

230 assigned for preliminary & secondary review Participating libraries exploring transfer and

reassignment of titles for which local preservation commitment is untenable

By May: Complete review of initial 230 title sample Compile data on direct costs of

validation and continuing subscriptions

Extrapolate to model costs for distributed management of entire class (est. 10K titles)



21

Shared Print Priorities for 2009-2010

Model costs/benefits of maintaining massively distributed print archives – risk-adjusted business model vs. consolidation in shared storage/distribution centers as

with UC-CRL archive Assess ‘retail’ value of print collections in current

scholarship Increase exposure of existing print archives in

WorldCat – build critical mass to enable change in behaviors JSTOR print archives; monographic holdings at IRLA; UKRR

titles Increase international and IRLA participation in

Shared Print program – seek global (network) impact UK Research Reserve, Group of Eight



22

Museum Data ExchangeWill these records play nicely in our sandbox?



23



24



25

The Grant Deliverables

Analyze DataInteroperability?

Standards compliance?

Harvest DataTest tools

Create Research Aggregation

Create ToolsExtract CDWA Lite XML records out of Collections Management

SystemsOpen Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting



26

Create Tools



27

Figure 1: System Architecture proposed for data extraction and publication

Source DB(TMS or other)

PublicOAI CDWA LiteXML Database

OAIRepositoryApplication

CDWA LiteWork Database

PublicOAI CDWA Lite

XML File System

OAIRepositoryApplication

Firewall

WebInternal Systems Public Systems

DataExtraction

Tool

MappingProfiles

RecordUpdateHash

HTTP

SQL

SQL

SQLFile I/O

File I/O File I/O

JDBC,ODBC,or other

InternalCDWA Lite

XML File System

DataPublishing

ToolSQL



28

Cogapp Ltd’s COBOAT

COBOAT extracts CDWA Lite XML out of Collections Management Systemshttp://www.oclc.org/research/software/coboat/default.htm

An existing tool… Collections Online Back Office Administration Tool Deployed by Cogapp in major museums since 2003 available fee-free license / use-restricted from Cogapp

…with extensions added through the grant… Plug-in to support CDWA Lite XML export Editable configuration files geared towards TMS “tested against TMS, deployable against any database” available under Apache 2.0 license

http://www.oclc.org/research/software/coboat/default.htm

http://www.oclc.org/research/software/coboat/default.htm



29

OCLC Research’s OAICatMuseum 1.0

OAICatMuseum publishes the COBOAT extraction to OAI-PMHhttp://www.oclc.org/research/software/oai/oaicatmuseum.htm

OAICatMuseum 1.0 based on Jeff Young’s (OCLC Research) OAICat incorporates CDWA Lite XML functionality available under Apache 2.0 license

http://www.oclc.org/research/software/oai/oaicatmuseum.htm

http://www.oclc.org/research/software/oai/oaicatmuseum.htm



30

Harvest Data



31

Participants:

Original GrantHarvard Art MuseumMetropolitan Museum of ArtNational Gallery of ArtPrinceton University Art

MuseumYale University Art GalleryCleveland Museum of ArtVictoria & Albert Museum

(UK)

Late additionsNational Gallery of Canada

(CA)Minneapolis Institute of Art

Using Toolset| Alternative method

850,000CDWA Lite XML Records



32

Analyze Data



33



34

CDWA Lite requiredfields present?

CDWA Lite data elementsused by all institutions?

CCO complianceof the data?

Does controlled vocabularyuse support better

searching?

How consistentis the data?

Do queries returnmeaningful results?

Suggest strategies to work around the inevitable inconsistencies in the data



35

From a participating institution…

National Gallery of Art: Roger Lawsons’ take



36

Archival Steering Committee

Pushing the acid-free envelope



37

Delivering Archives & Special Collections

Four core projects emerging for FY10 Bringing Web 2.0 technology to bear – empower users Photography and scanning – loosen up policies Rights balancing act – push the envelope Sharing special collections – build trust

Steering Committee Delivering Archives & Special Collections Steering

Committee – 3 partners

Advisory Group Sharing Special Collections - 6 partners



38

The Three “Other” Arch/SpeCol Projects

Bringing Web 2.0 technology to bear Why not put up collections for scholars to tag? Researchers know more about collections than do curators

Photography and scanning Reduce policy restrictions and confusion Allow digital cameras in reading rooms Lean toward quick and dirty access copies

Rights balancing act Librarians and archivists take conservative view Tend to be over-diligent about observing copyright Users tend to get more restricted access with digital than

with analog



39

4. Sharing Special Collections

Building on 2002 RLG Forum, “Sharing the Wealth”

Controversial then, controversial now

Advisory Group: Getty, Emory, Miami, Penn State, Princeton, Minnesota ILL/Access librarians

Webinar: Treasures on Trucks and other Taboos Thursday, May 28, 11:00am – 12:30 pm ET Old pro at lending special collections (Emory) Newbie just starting to consider (Miami) Teams of ILL & special collections staff invited



40

Some Questions for Discussion

What do you mean by “lending special collections?”

Do you do lend? Borrow? Is this crazy? Or an idea whose time has come? Who at your institution decides? How do you build trust? In whom? Is trust and established practice enough? Has scanning lessened demand for seeing the

physical object? How will TET’s affect practice? Is it better to integrate with regular ILL work flow

or to keep separate?



41

Sharing Special Collections Webinar

Treasures on Trucks and other Taboos: Rethinking the Sharing of Special Collections

Thursday, May 28, 11:00am – 12:30 pm ET Old pro at lending special collections (Emory) Newbie just starting to consider (Miami) Teams of ILL & special collections staff on panel

Teams of ILL & special collections staff invited RLG Programs partner institutions only



42

Library, Archive and Museum Collaboration

Beyond the Silos of the LAMs



43

Collaboration Continuum

additive transformative...



44

Princeton

Smithsonian

Victoria & Albert

U of Edinburgh Yale

The Wo

rkshop

s



45

Programs & Research Günter Waibel – Library, Archive and MuseumWashington DC – December 9 2008

46

Collaboration Stones for

Stepping Collaboration

Stones for Stepping

Collaboration Stones forStepping

The Collaboration Catalysts

Vision

Mandate

Incentives Change Agents

Mooring Resources

Flexibility External Catalysts

Trust

Programs & Research Günter Waibel – Library, Archive and MuseumWashington DC – December 9 2008

47

Round Robin Round-up!

...with Amy Lucker

RLG Round Robin Round-Up

April 2009

[images on the following slideshave been removed]

The Group

Total received = 17– Museums = 14– Academic = 3

Administrative – Staff Changes

Changes in personnel reported in 12 of 17: including reorgs, promotionsTwo reported lost positions this year.Two reported added positions (one part-time) this year.

Financial

Gifts (including gifts in kind) received by 3Grants received by 8

This year’s budget cut for 6Current hiring freeze for 3

Programs

ExhibitionsBlogsInternshipsResearchersCollaborationsWikis

BibliographiesOrientations/ToursTrainingConferencesPublications

Facilities

Yale moved into new building; Compact shelving @ the NationalGallery (US); Guggenheim and SLAM relocated archives; Plans for bigmoves happening @ National Gallery (Canada), MFA Boston, MFAHouston; Met is planning renovation of book conservation facilities;Everyone is shipping stuff off-site.

Technology

Website design

Meta-tools galore!

Recon still goin’ on

Digitization projects

NYARC joint ILS

Archivists’ Toolkit

Bonus Question“more focus on exchange program for acquiring materials”

“Fear and loathing! “

“fewer acquisitions of primary materials”

“inability to fill vacant positions”

“budget cuts are a huge challenge, but can also be the catalyst for taking more daring and creative approaches to building services and collections”

“budget reduction of at least 25%”

“Concerned” “Remaining flexible, and creative, in uncertain climate”

“cost-containment measures”

“marked decrease in the publication of

exhibition catalogs and auction catalogs”

“eliminating all temporary and casual positions”

See you next year – in Boston!

Education

ARLIS Roundtable 2009