4 thoughts on “Emerging network level management of the collective print collection”

  1. Some other useful highlights from the day I think were the welcome given to the notion that non-HE collections would need to be part of any new and meaningful system of data aggregation to support auditing for access to distributed (print) collections, the inclusion generally of museums and archives, as well as libraries in any such arrangement, and the adding to the mix of these ideas approaches from the field of records management .
    Crucially, for any of this to work (efficiently) it is going to require good metadata, an elevated and consistent currency of the same, and an even greater penetration of systems/format standardization across and within sectors (aka shared services for discovery and description).
    Most of all, though, as Neil Grindley put it succinctly: “‘Preservation people’ need a lot more opportunities to swap notes with ‘collections people’, to work out how the roles fit together.”

  2. The Center for Research Libraries (CRL) plans to develop a print archives registry and decision-support system in conjunction with WEST and other print archiving consortia. WEST, CRL, and others do aim to use WorldCat as the primary method of disclosure (revealing archived status and conditions) and access/delivery. The specialized decision criteria, including typologies such as that developed by Leeds and WEST and Ithaka’s What to Withdraw framework, argue for a separate customized but broad-scale application (at least in the near term) to support the decision-making process (what to archive, what to deselect). CRL and its 250+ members serve as an excellent locus for such a system in North America and a powerful forum for defining best practices and common approaches. Work is beginning to outline methods and metadata standards for defining archived print materials using WorldCat, across multiple archiving initiatives.

  3. 1) Given the relative size of the UK and the US, the UK will have a better of chance of pulling this off, particularly with the precedent of the BL Lending Library. I would think that the US would need several such bodies.
    2) The great problem with CRL is the cost, which eliminates many institutions such as mine from participation. Great care needs to be taken to have an economically sustainable model that yet remains open to all researchers.
    3) OCLC will need to do a better job of accommodating local data before it will be able to be truly useful in this area.

  4. I find the typology interesting because it defines collection strengths in a way which is different from how they are usually defined – as the disciplinary strengths of an institution.
    The latter still exist in the self-renewing category I suppose, or perhaps they underpin the other three categories, but it seems that Brian Clifford is suggesting that all libraries have a responsibility to what we used to describe in Australia as the Distributed National Collection.
    Now, given the addition of digitisation, we might refer to it as Robert Darnton does as the “Library without Walls”. See http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/oct/04/library-without-walls/.

Leave a Reply