1 / 37

Subject Librarians’ Forum on eLD #3 5 & 11 November 2013

Subject Librarians’ Forum on eLD #3 5 & 11 November 2013. eLD Group : Who’s who. Karine Barker , Subject Librarian for Medical Sciences Isabel Holowaty , Bodleian History Librarian (Chair) Jo Gardner , Bodleian Social Sciences Librarian

webb
Download Presentation

Subject Librarians’ Forum on eLD #3 5 & 11 November 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Subject Librarians’ Forum on eLD #35 & 11 November 2013

  2. eLD Group: Who’s who • Karine Barker, Subject Librarian for Medical Sciences • Isabel Holowaty, Bodleian History Librarian (Chair) • Jo Gardner, Bodleian Social Sciences Librarian • Jane Rawson, Vere Harmsworth Librarian, Chair of the SOLO User Group • Susan Thomas, Digital Archivist, Bodleian Electronic Archives and Manuscripts • Angela Carritt, Bodleian Libraries User Education Co-Ordinator • Richard Gibby, Legal Deposit Libraries Manager • Alison Felstead, Head of Resource Description, C&RD • Andy Mackinnon, Library Database Programming & Applications Support Team, BLDSS • Michael Popham, Head, Oxford Digital Library • Jackie Raw, Bodleian Head of Legal Deposit Operations (Secretary) • CatríonaCannon, Bodleian Associate Director, Collection Support

  3. eLD Group: remit • Reports to Collection Management Strategy Group (CMSG) • Consults • Receive information & feedback • Makes recommendations • Communicates

  4. eLD Group: objectives • Develop and implement methods for consulting with subject librarians and curators on publishers’ priorities and web archiving priorities locally and sharing outcomes with them and other relevant staff. • Develop and implement local communication plans; identify and liaise with relevant BodLibs committees and groups whose work might be affected by eLD (e.g. GL Reclassification WP) • Draft paper onOxford-specific requirements in order to be fully eLD-functionalfor local planning purposes and decide which Oxford-specific issues can be forward to LDLs to assist further development and improvements. • Draftlocal decision-making and work-flow plans. • Develop recommendations for subject librarians regarding changes to collection development policies, selection work, new book displays, user education etc. • Identify user education needsand develop plans for reader services staff and subject librarians. • Led by SOLO UG, review displayof eLD material in SOLO.

  5. eLD Group: current work Updating stakeholders: MT: Subject Librarians’ Forum, intranet pages, web archive launch update to BodLibs Round Table update to Divisional CLiPS & CUL Making eLD work in Oxford: Identify Requirements to be eLD functional: access & use, information retrieval, collection development Active participation at Legal Deposit Libraries levels re publishers priorities, format priorities, ebook ingest workflows, metadata, Notice and Takedown, printing, etc.

  6. Making eLD work in Oxford: Requirements

  7. eLD update & publishers’ priorities

  8. Update on the move to eLD to date There are over 103,000 article records for eLD material in SOLO (as of mid-October 2013) Serials- • Maney, Wiley and Informa Healthcare have transitioned to e and the BL is receiving regular deposits • In 2014-15 Manchester University Press, Emerald, Edinburgh University Press and Cambridge University Press have all agreed to deposit their serials via Portico. Oxford University Press and Sage will do so using the BL’s Portal in January 2014. Monographs- • The BL is not yet able to process content at scale as they found that the original eBooks 1 ‘pilot’ software was not viable for live implementation. Currently they are working on eBooks 2 and Taylor and Francis will test this in due course. Collecting content on a large scale is not expected until mid-2014. • T&F and Palgrave Macmillan are still very keen to move to e deposit but ingest is delayed as is the move for other major academic publishers until high-level requirements are addressed. • Kogan Page and Woodhead/Chandos are depositing under eLD. • Hachette has deposited content with the BL but this is not yet accessible on SOLO. They continue to publish some books in print and the Agent will continue to claim these.

  9. 1. The LDLs: publisher priorities matrix

  10. Publisher priorities. Conflict resolution* The objective is to reach consensus between partners. If this cannot be agreed a process to resolve the disagreement will be invoked. • When a publisher approaches the BL Andy Davis will apply the matrix. If the result is green a publisher can be added to the priority list for migration in due course. • Any other outcome = red. Red requires consultation. If the vote is 6:0 or 5:1 a publisher can be added to the priority list for migration in due course and Andy will inform the agency and all LDLs. If the vote is 3:3 the publisher will be informed that they cannot start to migrate before late 2014 or 2015 at the earliest because of capability and resourcing capacity constraints. • If the vote is 4:2 the publisher will be discussed at CDAS. Factors influencing the discussion will be number of titles affected and cost of substitution, ratio of titles to be deposited digitally to titles currently deposited in print, publisher’s level of enthusiasm to deposit digitally and the potential risk if we delay. *IG paper 239.

  11. Publisher priorities. Conflict resolution* Example: For the original 25 publishers Category 1. No disagreement – prioritise for early migration when end-to-end capabilities and resources allow eg Kogan Page, Dorling Kindersley Category 2. T&F and Palgrave Macmillan are exceptional cases – very hard pressure. We will work with them in testing capabilities and a agree a timetable on completion Category 3. Academic publishers we do not wish to prioritise. Eg OUP, CUP and Sage. We will not start migrating them before late 2014 at the earliest. *IG paper 239.

  12. Summary: end to end decision making process

  13. 2. Our local decision making process • The matrix is not the most user-friendly tool for the large number of staff with a vote at Oxford. We propose to use a Survey Monkey poll instead and we’ll feed our findings back into the matrix and submit this with the other LDLs. • You can find this at: http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/staff/services/card/ldo/e-legal-deposit-information-for-staff/e-legal-deposit-information-fo-subject-specialists • How to vote? Jane has considered this from a subject librarian’s perspective-

  14. Survey monkey

  15. Survey monkey

  16. Things to consider when responding • What do they publish? • Type of content? How important/core to your collection? • Don’t forget to consider imprints! • How much do they publish? How much do we get? • How quickly do books arrive? How much do you claim? What percentage of claims are successful? How much do you end up buying anyway? • How do your readers use the books? • How heavily? Do you rely on print LD or purchase additional for lending/multiple copies? Would they demand print copies if the LD method switched?

  17. If you don’t know the answer already… • Search SOLO for each imprint as publisher • Limit to your library and sort by date-newest • Review recent VBD selections / LD claims/ orders

  18. A heads up.5 year collection planning for the LDLs. Collecting by format? At a recent CDAS workshop the BL sought views from the LDLs on possible transition by format in the longer term. We began by considering collecting by - • E-Journals • Academic e-books • Trade/ fiction e-books • Other serials or monographs e.g. market research reports • Freely available web pages • Web content behind passwords and paywall barriers (which includes many news and magazine sites) • Documents embedded within web pages e.g. official publications, conference reports • Digital editions of newspapers (i.e. mobile editions) • Digital editions of magazines (i.e. mobile editions) • Other mobile content e.g games • Databases e.g. research data • Any other digital content within scope e.g. social media • There may be other formats not listed here that we could add. The BL will put together a straw man for discussion at LDIG/CDAS and this will take time. It may be that ‘by format’ is not considered useful as it cuts across negotiations with publishers and may be less clear cut to us in terms of content type. However, it should prove an interesting discussion as the LDLs continue to plan for future collection under eLD. Again we will consult before taking this forward. • Any questions…

  19. Group work (20mins) How could eLD affect collection development work? • Selection • Processing • Space • Promotion

  20. Update: Requirements • All eLD Group members have provided a list • Priorities will be discussed 11 November (PM) • Four main areas: 1. Printing 2. SOLO searching & display 3. Access (via tablets) 4. Improve performance of ERICOM

  21. Requirements: Printing • Cannot open agreed firewall port – security contravention • Plan B: VPN tunnel for communicating between servers • PCAS will be integrated • Awaiting confirmation

  22. Requirements: SOLO searching & display • Distinguish eLD from non-eLD content • Weight non-eLD content • Ability to find eLD content by journal and monograph title • Find eLD journals that were first received as LD journals

  23. Requirements: Access via tablets • Risk:eLD material will be seen as inferior and a step backwards in provision • Business Case proposed to British Library for project to examine access from tablets. If accepted, would run Jan 2014 – March 2015 • Aims to find tactical solution • LDLs decide whether to adopt solution

  24. Requirements: Improve ERICOM performance • Currently slow • Would ideally function like a subscription resource: • Browsing • Navigation • Clickable TOCs and references • Export options • Accessibility for disabled users

  25. Update: Legal Deposit Web Archive

  26. Scope of the Legal Deposit UK Web Archive Domain Crawl (broad sweep of UK web) Special Collections (themes/events) Key sites (news; high impact/value) Rapid response (current events)

  27. Timeline: domain crawl • Aug-Dec 2012: Pre-regulation experimenting with a full domain dark crawl • Apr-Jun 2013: First post-regulation full domain crawl captures over 31TB of data/~3.8 million websites • ?2 Dec 2013 – launch of the first domain crawl • Broad, but shallow, coverage of UK webspace • Caps may result in incomplete captures for some sites

  28. First ‘Special Collection’ On NHS Reform • Collected 2.9TB to from Apr to Jun 2013 • List of websites supplied by BL curators • 16 Oct 2013: discoverable in BL catalogue and in use in BL reading rooms • 23 Oct 2013: Green light to make LDWA Search Tool available at all LDLs • 31 Oct 2013: LDWA Search Tool listed in OxLIP+

  29. Special Collections for 2014 • Up to five for 2014 • Nominations so far include: • Centenary of the outbreak of WW1 (28 Jul 2014) • British coverage and participation in the Winter Olympics (Feb 2014) • Commonwealth Games (Jul-Aug 2014) • Referendum on Scottish independence (18 Sep 2014)

  30. List of ‘key sites’ • 250-500 ‘key sites’ • For ‘better’ archiving • National Libraries and TCD have provided input to the list of ‘key sites’ • We expect to provide input soon • First iteration of ‘key sites’ list in use, July 2013 • Includes core news sites (local and national)

  31. First ‘rapid response’ crawl On the news of the death of Mrs Thatcher • Two weeks in April 2013, using pre-existing list of news sites • Collected 15.4GB data

  32. Consultation on priorities • Legal Deposit Web Archive Prioritisation Group (LDWAPG) • To instigate and then oversee the canvassing of proposals for focussed collections and to adjudicate between them. • To review the key sites (inc. news lists) • To approve rapid web archiving activity in response to an emerging event. • To support the BL Web Archiving Team in initiating and maintaining the most appropriate contacts with content specialists across the LDLs. • Susan Thomas is our LDWAPG member • Input will be sought from a wide range of Bodleian staff, including archivists, curators and librarians • See Intranet for more detail

  33. Access to LDWA • Not discoverable in SOLO. No plans to include LDWA metadata there. • Our URL is https://bodleian.ldls.org.uk/ldwa • Will be listed in OxLIP+ • To search metadata offsite, use British Library catalogue at http://explore.bl.uk. • As with other eLD - access only on LDL premises.

  34. Communications • New Web Archive category in OxLIP+ • New LibGuide Tab for Webarchives • Bulletin for Outline in December • Guidance on the Intranet: http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/staff/services/card/ldo/e-legal-deposit-information-for-staff/legal-deposit-web-archive

  35. Final Q&A?

  36. Bookmark eLD pages: http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/staff/services/card/ldo/e-legal-deposit-information-for-staff Respond to eLD SurveyMonkey Publicise web archive LibGuide tab OxLIP+ category General publicity once launched

More Related