Bob Buckwalter, Marianne Burke, Michael Fitzgerald, Rodney Goins, Kathy Klemperer, Eva Moseley, Ted Pappadopoulos, Jon Rothman, Hinda Sklar, Lynne Schmelz (chair), Dorothy Solbrig, Mark Van Baalen, Judy Warnement, Robin Wendler (recording)
Absent: Carrie Kent
Guest: Leslie Morris
Leslie Morris, chair of the Special Collections Task Force of the Automation Planning Committee (APC), introduced its report. Leslie explained that the task force's charge was to identify the automation needs specifically for those materials treated collectively, rather than for the entire spectrum of special collections materials. The needs of rare books, manuscripts, and other materials treated singly are not discussed.
The report has three sections, dealing with administrative information, bibliographic records, and finding aids, three different areas of information which are in some part duplicative. The task force has respected the diversity of practice in the creation and form of finding aids in the report, but has recommended certain standards, such as the use of SGML.
Mark Van Baalen asked if there was enough commonality among various repositories that they would use a common tool if one were available. Eva Moseley noted that the special collections community has been developing a consensus of common needs and data elements since the 1970s, and Leslie agreed, saying that the community was very interested in using a common tool, although some special databases may still need to be maintained for local needs.
Hinda Sklar asked if the recommendation of central support implied a central server like HOLLIS, or a central supply of software to be loaded at decentralized sites. Leslie explained that the task force had not felt technically able to address this question, but that if separate servers were to be used, they should be compatible.
Jon Rothman observed that the requirements do not seem very different from the wish list for HOLLIS II for other materials.
Ted Pappadopoulos asked how important imaging was for these materials, and was told that it varies from repository to repository. Mark suggested that the locus be moved from the library level to the university level, due to the grey line between library collections and museum collections. Leslie explained that the museum community is several years behind the library community in defining common needs. Consensus does not yet exist. She added that context is important, and that an art museum may collect a photograph for different reasons than a library would, and the processing environment reflects this difference.
The APC, in response to this report, has recommended that a pilot of SGML-coded finding aids be pursued, and that a search engine and client be identified. Asked what in the scope of the report needed further action, Leslie noted that the role of digital images and how they fit into this model needs further consideration, and that feedback on the report must be solicited from the Harvard repositories. Kathy mentioned that digital imaging will probably be explored by a HOLLIS II planning group.
There was considerable enthusiasm for the report and for seeing that it receives wide distribution, both in the library and the museum communities. It was also noted that many task forces will be formed to make recommendations about functionality in HOLLIS II, and that the timing of the creation of the Special Collections Task Force was accidental. HAAC will consider at the next meeting whether to recommend any action on the report.
OIS distributed a discussion paper/committee charge dealing with the issues surrounding the cataloging of network-based resources in HOLLIS. Several libraries have expressed a desire to be able to catalog some network resources together with traditional library acquisitions. Also, a new field for electronic location and access information will be implemented in OCLC and RLIN in January. The time seems right to resolve whether this type of resource should be accommodated in HOLLIS and if so, how.
Eva Moseley had consulted with cataloging and reference staff, and they expressed an interest in a pilot project to catalog very substantial, stable resources. Marianne Burke was concerned about the duplicative work in maintaining cataloging information and gopher pointers. Rod Goins pointed out the immense maintenance required to keep up-to-date information on volatile network resources. Michael Fitzgerald countered that as many traditional library materials become available only online, we mislead users if we don't inform them of the new form these materials have taken.
HAAC established a working group to make recommendations and suggested the membership, spread among public services, technical services, and OIS. The members are Michael Fitzgerald, Ruth Haas, Mary Harrington, Joachim Martin, Debbie Kelley-Milburn, Janet Rutan, Hugh Wilburn, and Robin Wendler. The group's report is due before the February HAAC meeting.
The HOLLIS Plus Working Group has revised the guidelines, to be distributed with the minutes and published in HUL Notes.
Jon Rothman reported that the user comment facility has been available in the public catalog since November 1. 2-5 messages a day have been sent, representing all types of comments. Ed Tallent distributes all incoming comments, monitors responses, and keeps statistics.
The PSYCInfo database is now in HOLLIS, the help screens are being updated, and the database will be added to the database selection screen on November 21.
3d. Distributed Reporting
Law, Countway, and HCL are participating in the pilot phase. The facility is scheduled to go into production in February. Most of the most interested libraries are already involved in the pilot.
A decision is needed about whether materials can be delivered to non-owning libraries, and what the relationship is between FETCHERRS and HD's independent inventory control system (AICS).
Jon Rothman will set up a stress test of keyword qualification soon.
The group will visit MIT in December to look at their implementation of the OCLC SiteSearch software. SEEC continues to be in contact with OCLC.