Bob Buckwalter, Marianne Burke, Priscilla Caplan, John Collins, Michael Fitzgerald, Dale Flecker, Rodney Goins, Lynne Schmelz-Keil (chair), Carrie Kent, Ted Pappadopoulos, Mark Van Baalen, Judy Warnement, Robin Wendler (recording), Charles Willard
Mary Frances Angellini, Elise Calvi, Paula Ebbitt, Kate Ellis, Jennifer Hanlin, Ann Kern, Jon Lanham, Jon Rothman, Walter Stine, Floyd Sweeting, Julie Wetherill
Future Meetings: In the OIS Conference Room,
April 13, 3:00-5:00 May 18, 3:00-5:00 June 15, 3:00-5:00
Carrie Kent presented the SSHUSH response to a HUL Preservation Office proposal to supply information about non-Harvard master microforms in the HU records for the original items. The Preservation Office recommends recording in HOLLIS master microforms identified in the course of bibliographic searching. Preservation staff would create an additional location field with the code "nmm", which would display in the public catalog as a non-Harvard LOC with the text "National master microforms." Recording this information in HOLLIS would let local preservation staff know more quickly that a master exists, and would provide catalog users with information on where to go for a copy if the Harvard copy is in poor condition. The proposal suggests that the location field include a textual note identifying the institution which holds the master, as well as the utility number for the master's bibliographic record for use in ILL:
Example: National master microforms: Film master held by: New York Public Library, 1986 RLIN: NYGPO14000848-B
Under this proposal, master microform information would be recorded only in those cases where Harvard holds a paper copy. If in the future the paper copy is deaccessioned, the record may remain in HOLLIS with only the microform LOC. The proposal focuses on those national master microforms produced by institutions operating under national standards and guidelines for production and storage of archival quality microfilms. These libraries promise to store and provide access to master microforms in perpetuity. Commercially produced microforms fall outside the scope of this proposal. SSHUSH recommended that the proposal be accepted as is.
Charles Willard asked why all national microform masters shouldn't be represented, rather than only those for which Harvard holds paper copies. Dale Flecker noted that we would have to answer two questions: Do we want records for the entire national preservation effort in HOLLIS? and if so, is there a practical way to acquire them prospectively? At this time no mechanism exists to provide such records comprehensively.
Discussion then turned to whether the public presentation of the information could be improved. Several members felt that a user might not know when this information was valuable to them, or how to proceed based on it. It was agreed that HELP and Library Guide information would be needed to explain this information to the public. Cilla Caplan asked whether the utility number note could be phrased more descriptively. Julie Wetherill suggested the use of a "Type HELP NMM for more information" note in the LOC. Dale Flecker noted that a LOC-based note would be valuable for CRL materials as well, which could be added by a program to the database.
Preservation offered to draft HELP and Library Guide screens for the "nmm" LOC, as well as to revisit the LOC display, and to return their proposed text to SSHUSH. HAAC approved the proposal in principle, and will not need to review the modifications.
The group reviewed the basic principles identified in the report, beginning with the first, "Anything that is available through the Bridge must be accompanied by appropriate levels of technical and user support." While it was agreed that this refers both to local technical and reference support and to remote support (i.e. the resource must be stable), there was a great deal of discussion about the extent and locus of such support. While ideally all libraries should provide support for all commonly accessible resources, realistically the expertise for specific resources will vary from library to library. However, because Bridge resources will be available at each library and will therefore require some level of support in each library, there must be broad consultation and consensus before a resource is made available. Michael Fitzgerald pointed out that we don't want to shrink the resources to fit the librarians, and Judy Warnement added that if Harvard is paying for access there is a need to train people in order to recoup the investment, but if the resource is free, we should let people explore it. Cilla Caplan suggested we seek the middle ground between every library providing full support and a free-for-all: require that at least one library take responsibility for the support of each resource.
Mark Van Baalen suggested an explicit policy that different resources can be supported at different levels. Rodney Goins added that support needn't be local; for some resources the remote provider can offer support. Perhaps the libraries role then becomes helping users identify remote sources of support. Carrie Kent reiterated that while we cannot say yet what level of support is necessary for each resource, we must acknowledge that we have a responsibility. Julie Wetherill suggested that part of advocating a database for inclusion in the Bridge be a commitment to provide a basic level of support and documentation, whether locally produced or vendor-supplied.
Dale Flecker asked if the task force had thought about the ongoing mechanisms to be established for nominating, discussing, and approving the addition of new resources. While the group agreed that a structure must be put in place, they felt that it could better be discussed after the first set of resources is identified. Ted Pappadopoulos asked about the support implications for users who access these same resources, but not through the Bridge. Carrie Kent noted that there was not a lot of clarity at other institutions on this issue, and that the user would probably contact his affiliated library for assistance.
Cilla Caplan requested that one principle be struck from the list: Harvard should not recreate every resource loaded elsewhere. She pointed out that no resource is "loaded" as a result of the Bridge; the Bridge simply provides pointers to existing resources. Carrie Kent agreed to delete the point.
Carrie Kent asked whether we would permit access through the Bridge to resources which individual users can be charged for. Judy Warnement argued strongly that pay services should not be excluded from the Bridge. Carrie noted that then nothing would prevent the College from charging for access to any of the databases it supports, and soon every unit would push the cost of providing these resources down to the library user. Robin Wendler expressed the opinion that forcing users to establish separate searching accounts with each resource provider wasn't much of a service. Ted Pappadopoulos suggested that since fee for service providers would be using the Bridge to generate revenue, they should be required to chip in toward the support of the Bridge. Dale Flecker pointed out that OCLC and RLIN would be unlikely to agree. The group agreed that this was a large policy issue and that guidance should be sought from ULC.
There are three security scenarios outlined in the GIRLS report:
Carrie Kent pointed out that each alternative had disadvantages, and that the second was the least attractive, and likely to discourage potential database sponsors. Dale Flecker asked if the Bridge must support guests, and Carrie said she believed it did. Ted asked why this was necessary if the resources could be accessed from outside the Bridge. Cilla explained that the Bridge was likely to be the only university-wide access to certain resources, such as Citadel files, as well as providing the convenience of scripted access to a wide variety of resources.
Dale Flecker posed two questions with an impact on security:
Julie Wetherill suggested setting up two levels in the Bridge, public and private, and having users sign on once for access to all restricted databases.
The group agreed that it could not resolve many of the policy issues raised by the GIRLS report in this meeting. OIS will begin prototyping using the resources enumerated in section 2.2 of the report, the question of fee-for-service resources will be referred to ULC, and HAAC will renew discussion on the report after ULC meets.
Kate Ellis introduced the GARP report, which proposes a two-pronged approach to automating course and standing reserves, a mainframe component and a PC workstation-based component. The group recommended that records be created (or copied from HU) in a separate database for all reserve items. A PC workstation or other local computing would be used to perform repetitive clerical aspects of reserves processing. The availability of macros, etc., dramatically reduces keying and allows a high degree of local customization. The group recommends that course records be maintained in local machines rather than in HOLLIS.
Cilla Caplan asked what functions would be necessary if reserves information were maintained in HU rather than in a separate database. Kate listed the addition of new indexes: reserve author, reserve title, course number, course title, and instructor; new fields for course number, title, and instructor. Public service staff consulted by the task force found it clearer to have reserves information together, and separated from the huge number of items in HU. Robin Wendler added another advantage to the separate database approach: the non-standard access points needed by reserves units, such as variant author names, are likely to violate bibliographic standards, and reserves could consequently find themselves constrained unnecessarily. Ted Pappadopoulos suggested that the public could see a separate database which technically was a view into the HU database.
Discussion of the GARP report will continue at the next HAAC meeting, 4/13/93.