Venue: ICPSR, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, October 11-16, 2009
The Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) will host the October 2009 Digital Preservation Management workshop, originally developed at Cornell University Library by Anne R Kenney and Nancy Y McGovern.

This workshop series, developed with funding from NEH, is aimed at managers at organizations who are or will be responsible for digital preservation. The workshop begins on Sunday evening with an opening session, continues Mon-Thursday 9am – 5pm, and concludes Friday at noon. Additional information about the workshop content and logistics is available at: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/dpm/workshops/fiveday.html.
Questions? Contact digital-preservation@icpsr.umich.edu

Based on Nylink’s 35-year history of serving the libraries of New York State our expert staff has a well-informed understanding of library issues and opportunities that enables Nylink to help you save money and time at your library. The experience and ingenuity of our professional staff lead to creative solutions for technical services, resource sharing, and reference needs. We provide a strong personal touch – you always talk to a person, not a machine, when you face a dilemma or need a helping hand. Every day, Nylink members get unlimited access to Nylink’s advice and counsel for metadata and technical services, resource sharing, digitization, financial services, and electronic resources management. Nylink Professional Solutions are also available to non-members on a quarterly or annual subscription basis.

Joyce and I just returned from a visit to the Hadley Exhibit company in Buffalo.

New Uncrowned Community Builders Kiosk

Dr. Peggy Brooks-Bertram and Dr. Barbara Seals Nevergold unveiled their first kiosk for the Uncrowned Community Builders project.  It’s a partially enclosed environment which could comfortably seat two or more people.  The idea is to allow individuals the opportunity to record their own histories – with a scanner, computer, camera, microphones and other technologies to assist them.

Dr. Nevergold and Dr. Bertram

Visit Uncrowned Queens for more information on this initiative of Dr. Bertram and Dr. Nevergold’s for over the past 10 years – and look back here for more articles in the future.

Like many other children of the 70s, I still have a few hundred vinyl LPs, and a few dozen cassette tapes. I have in some cases replaced them with CDs, but there hasn’t been a compelling reason to dispose of the albums to which I have a sentimental attachment. Holding on to media that has outlasted its equipment is a more serious challenge for libraries, which have so many demands on their floor space, and may need to devote more time to current and upcoming media formats.

University at Buffalo libraries currently feature a thoughtful exhibit entitled Retro Media: Memory (and Memories) Lost: The physical exhibit at the UB libraries is complemented by a video tour and a concise, well-constructed website.

The theme of the exhibit: “The past 120 years saw some of the most rapid changes in how we record, collect, and use audio, visual, and now digital information. The pace creates in its wake, a long list of obsolete technologies, some of which, still exist, but for which equipment and storage technologies are not always available. This exhibit reflects this light-speed, developing technology world with a selection of media formats”. Retro Media also highlights the role of libraries in preserving, storing, and using outdated media. To see the exhibit online, visit http://library.buffalo.edu/asl/exhibits/technology/retro-media.html

Or enjoy a video tour of the exhibit: http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=2612

Humanities Collections and Reference Resources Grant
The Division of Preservation and Access of the National Endowment for the Humanities will be  accepting applications for grants in its Humanities Collections and Reference Resources program.  These grants support projects to preserve and create intellectual access to such collections as books, journals, manuscript and archival materials, maps, still and moving images, sound recordings, art, and objects of material culture.  Awards also support the creation of reference materials, online resources, and research tools of major importance to the humanities.  Maximum awards are $350,000 for up to three years. The new guidelines, which include sample proposal narratives, can be found at:  http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/HCRR.html .The application receipt deadline of July 15, 2009 is for projects beginning May 2010. All applications to NEH must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov .

Oral Histories to Podcasts Classroom

On Friday, March 27 in Nylink’s training room Dave Nolan, Audio Archivist at the 92nd St. Y in Manhattan gave a candid presentation to 10 people about how to cost-effectively migrate analog audio materials to digital formats. He is shown here surrounded by his audio equipment—rent SUV, recording studio will travel.

Ellen McHale Ph.D., executive director of the New York Folklore Society, conducted a workshop the afternoon before (March 26, 2009) during which the 11 workshop participants practiced interviewing and being interviewed. Ellen handed out a sample release form, a “Folklore Fieldwork Data Sheet” and forewarned the class that family members may be the most reticent about being interviewed.

A total of 18 people from historical societies, not-for-profits, museums and public, college and graduate-school libraries attended the day-and-a-half conference.

“Could you please send me a picture of Secretariat?” was the most common request fans had for Mrs. Penny Chenery (then Tweedy) the owner of Secretariat who won the Triple Crown in 1973. 

For 5 days I sifted through and scanned fan mail sent to Mrs. Chenery about her super horse Secretariat and some including his stable mate Riva Ridge.  The National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs was loaned an old box of fan letters dated from the fall of 1973 through spring 1974 with the intent that they could scan them and then have full rights to those images.  While the letters themselves won’t be a part of the museum’s archives the digital images will be.

I was able to participate in the practical aspects of a scanning project including organizing the letters, scanning, and metadata creation.  It was a great opportunity to refresh my digitization skills and to be reminded just how long it takes to go through the process.  (Partly because I couldn’t resist reading many of the letters!)

Noted on the OCLC-Cat List: New User Guide Available — Authorities: Format and Indexes (Peter Insabella, OCLC)

Authorities: Format and Indexes provides details on selected topics that catalogers need to identify and verify information in bibliographic and/or authority records via the OCLC authority file.

Authorities: Format and Indexes contains detailed authorities-related information
that can assist the following library staff:

• Fully authorized NACO (Name Authority Cooperative Program) participants who lock, edit, and replace master records, and add new records.
• Cataloging users at NACO institutions who lock and edit master records prior to verification by authorized NACO users at their institution.
• Cataloging users at non-NACO institutions who edit and save authority records locally and verify names and titles when updating and/or enhancing WorldCat™ bibliographic records.
• Public services, reference, resource sharing, and acquisitions staff who verify names and titles for local use or for interlibrary loan.

This new 62 page user guide supersedes the former Authorities User Guide. It is available online in both HTML and PDF formats, at:

HTML format: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/authorities/authformat/default.htm

PDF format: http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/worldcat/authorities/authformat/auth_format_and%20_indexes.pdf

Now that OCLC has released the policy, and the associated summary and FAQ, I have had time to fully absorb the changes between this policy and the previous (currently in force) Guidelines for the Use and Transfer of OCLC-Derived Records. The more I think about the policy, the more questions I have. For instance, here are a few issues that I think need further exploration and discussion:

Issue 1. The new policy states that if the library has contributed the record as original cataloging, then the use of that record is not restricted by the terms of the policy (B. Definitions, 3 and 4):

…An OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member may Use or Transfer the following without complying with this Policy: (i) a WorldCat Record designated in WorldCat as the Original Cataloging of the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member; or (ii) a bibliographic record which is not Derived from WorldCat whether or not the OCLC Member or Non-OCLC Member adds the OCLC control number to the record.

A bibliographic record in WorldCat is designated as the “Original Cataloging” of the agency represented in the OCLC MARC 040 field, subfield a (original cataloging agency).

Here are my concerns with this:

1. The 040 subfield a data can be changed during lock & replace by anyone with a Full, CONSER or Enhance authorization while doing work on the record to upgrade it. So – how can a library prove (or even know) if a record’s use is unrestricted. Back in the day, DLC (Library of Congress) records regularly overlaid member-contributed records whenever they were tape loaded into the OLUC/ Online Union Catalog (WorldCat’s original name). Those records displayed with 040 $a DLC once they were overlaid. So retrospectively, how would a library know whether in the current WorldCat database, they appeared to have the right to ignore the policy?

2. The assumption that a library might do different things with subsets of their records based on cataloging source status (original vs copy cataloging) is troubling to me as well. Is it even easy to sort local ILS records this way? I know that Nylink members often ask me to report to them the number of records that they have contributed to WorldCat as original cataloging, which makes me think that this would not be a simple process for them to do in-house. And besides, given that it is possible to do, it is likely that there would be a project where the library would only need to work with the original cataloging subset?

3. As I read this, I keep coming back to the idea of ownership now being ascribed to the symbol in 040 $a. The majority of WorldCat is cataloged originally by member libraries, including national libraries. A quick search in Connexion indicates that only 39,965 WorldCat records have a symbol associated with OCLC itself (OCL, OCLC, OCLCS, etc). Would OCLC be happy following the restrictions of the policy regarding its own records, or are they saying that all records are theirs to do with as they wish, but the same does not apply to you? It does not seem logical.

Issue 2. Libraries have to submit a Proposal for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records form to get permission from OCLC to use WorldCat derived records in any project deemed to exceed “reasonable use”. What? Here is the definition of reasonable use from the policy:

“Reasonable Use” means Use of WorldCat Records that is reasonable for the intended Non-Commercial Use and consistent with the intent of this Policy. Without limiting the foregoing, the term “Reasonable Use” does not include any Use of WorldCat Records that:

a. discourages the contribution of bibliographic and holdings data to WorldCat, thus damaging OCLC Members’ investment in WorldCat, and/or

b. substantially replicates the function, purpose, and/or size of WorldCat. Please see the FAQ for a discussion of Z39.50 for cataloging using WorldCat-derived bibliographic records.

OK. So if OCLC is not threatened by the proposed usage, they will likely give permission. What if they are threatened because the proposed usage is viewed as a disruptive technology? There is no process for appeal, and in the policy as it stands, OCLC is the sole arbiter of what “reasonable” means. I find this truly troublesome, because I am still in the school of thought that members built this database, and it belongs to them.

Issue 3. Enforcement of the policy:

This policy is scheduled to take effect in February, 2009, but libraries that currently have cataloging subscriptions agreed to Terms & Conditions that are valid until June 30, 2009. The T&C don’t specify limitations on use of WorldCat records, either according to the existing Guidelines or the new Policy. In Section E. “Additional provisions” of the policy, OCLC states:

“The rights to Use and Transfer WorldCat Records afforded by this Policy shall automatically terminate upon any breach of the terms of this Policy”

Isn’t this a conflict? Doesn’t this kind of threat actually push libraries to seek other solutions to avoid the possibility of paying for a service that they could find themselves denied if they are deemed to have breached the terms of the new policy? I think this is counter-productive.

Issue 4. Many WorldCat records are public documents, as are the local system record databases (or other repositories) of public institutions. Library of Congress, other US national libraries, State libraries, State Universities and Colleges, and public libraries are public agencies, funded (at least in part) by taxpayer dollars. How can OCLC, a non-public entity, limit the usage of public resources via this policy? I am sure that many public entities are scrutinizing the policy, and using valuable time and expertise to determine whether they can agree to these terms. It will remain to be seen if the policy can stand as it is, or whether special provisions will need to made for publicly funded institutions.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (the more things change, the more they stay the same)

In 2004, I was asked by then OCLC VP of Cataloging and Metadata, Gary Houk (a great guy, whose passing on August 18, 2008 was mourned by many, including me), to participate in some cataloging discussions with a small task force from OCLC Member’s Council to discuss what we were calling “Record Nabbing”. Record nabbing was basically the Z39.50 capture/download of MARC records for cataloging from any Z39.50 host, without explicit permission from the host site, and without the intention of returning holdings to WorldCat. Remember, in those days, returning holdings could cost money. Although members of the task force were concerned about the potential erosion of “the cooperative”, our final conclusion was that any firewall, filter or other software Z39.50 preventative was overkill, and that the solution was to make the presence and visibility of holdings in WorldCat critical to a library’s self interest. One initiative that followed quickly on this insight was WorldCat.org, which has had a positive impact on libraries and OCLC. Now it is 2008, and here we are again. I hope that as libraries examine the new policy they will communicate with each other and with OCLC about their concerns, so that the desire to protect the WorldCat database and collaborative does not become the seeds of its destruction.

PS Elaine Sanchez, from the Texas State University-San Marcos is currently circulating a Petition for OCLC to Collaboratively Re-write the Policy for Use and Transfer of WorldCat Records. If you are interested, please go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/oclc/petition.html

The Copyright Clearance Center now offers colleges and universities an annual copyright license.  The Annual Copyright License allows the reuse of text-based copyrighted content within higher education institutions.  Educational uses include:

• Coursepacks—paper and electronic
• Class handouts
• Library reserves—traditional and e-reserves
• Electronic course content

The annual copyright license does not include documents received through interlibrary loan.

Additional information is available on the Copyright Clearance Center website:

http://www.copyright.com/ccc/viewPage.do?pageCode=ac12