With our increasing reliance on electronic record keeping, especially online records, it makes a lot of sense to consider the use of virtual bookplates for those items which would normally have a printed label affixed within the book:

• An item with a Virtual Bookplate from the University of Florida Smathers Libraries, which utilizes an 856 MARC field link to the virtual bookplate.
• A search box on their Donor web page gives donors (and others) an easy way to locate the donated items.
• The virtual bookplate for the item.
• A presentation on Slideshare (14 slides) providing an overview of their process.

This strikes me as an especially effective way to both recognize and promote donors.  The only real technical requirements are graphics software to create and edit the bookplate design, and the web space to store the finished graphics.  Neither should be a problem for any library willing to spend the time required to get the project rolling.

The people who created the above-linked presentation are conducting a survey on library practices on bookplates.

found via AcqNet-L

Got an update from Linda Hulbert via SERIALST regarding their issues with Wiley (which I posted on Libology last week).  Wiley demonstrated that they could be flexible, and in doing so has allowed a library to continue to provide their content, and allows them to continue to be the company providing content.  This is a win-win situation, in which everyone makes adjustments in a way that ultimately benefits all involved:

I am happy to report that Wiley got back to me directly the day after the original post. The other happy news is that St. Thomas will be treated as a single site permitting us to sign the BAL license (Basic Access License) and not be required to use the EAL (Enhanced Access License).

We have looked at the language of both licenses closely to see what best serves the University of St. Thomas. We are grateful for the opportunity to choose rather than be locked into a kind of license because of a multi-site designation. I wish that everyone had the choice.

It appears to us that the BAL will meet all of our needs. We’ve read the license, the EBSCO license detail and looked at the Wiley FAQ. The only difference we can tell is that in the BAL, ILL is not explicit, but it is inferred and electronic course-packs are not explicit but they are also inferred. More than silent on the matter, the language permits the activities without so naming them.

We worried about two more areas: access in perpetuity for the content purchased (to obviate the need for purchasing paper, too) and usage data. The license, the FAQ and EBSCO’s review all indicate that we have access in perpetuity to subscribed data either by their supplying archival copy or continued access online. I would imagine, although it is not stated, that as long as we have any online Wiley content we will have access to purchased content online. While we subscribe we have access back to 1997, if available. I would not expect them to continue access to unpurchased content after cancellation.

Usage data: This is a change. At one point the EAL was required for usage data but that is no longer true. Both the FAQ and the license indicate that BAL license users will have usage data.

The benefits they list at their FAQ for all subscribers: Free access to Counter-compliant usage data; unlimited concurrent users, free course-pack and walk-in user access; content back to 1997 where available and perpetual access to content back to 1997.

We have a few things to negotiate with Wiley – our institution prefers licenses to be silent on governing law if we can’t have Minnesota and we would like to have a co-signed license. But in all the important ways, we are thrilled with the BAL.

So, these are our experiences. This is all good for UST.

I thought I would share some of the comments I got back from colleagues from various lists. Because some were directed just to me, I am going to have them all be anonymous.

Overall, what I see is that Wiley has replaced Elsevier as the least valued ‘partner’ in the scholarly communication chain. Because we have a choice, we are comfortable doing business with Wiley.

Her e-mail, with comments from her colleagues, can be found at the SERIALST Archive.

A post on the SERIALST list yesterday by Linda Hulbert, Associate Director of Collection Management and Services at the O’Shaughnessy-Frey Library in St. Paul, Minnesota details one library’s response to contractual conditions being imposed by Wiley.  I found it interesting because it highlights the challenges facing not only libraries, but content providers, and the perils of inflexibility.

The entire post can be found on the SERIALST Archive; I am including a large part of it in this post:

Another company is looking at the Elsevier model and using it. Unfortunately, unlike Elsevier where a library might get more content than they could pay for and unlike Elsevier which does not require that a library participate, Wiley is requiring all multi-site libraries to have a no-cancellation, minimum life time spend. Add insult to injury, we are not a multi-site library by any other vendor’s definition! But Wiley has designated us so. Without recourse.

So, I am sending this letter to many people at Wiley and in the library community. Please, help resist these kinds of publisher practices.

*****
I am writing to you today in your capacity as someone concerned with [higher education, customer service] at John Wiley and Sons.

Wiley provides an EAL license which has three major features: two year agreement, a guaranteed minimum spend (no cancellations without adding titles) (ala Elsevier) and, for that ‘lock-in,’ libraries will have a cap on the annual inflationary increases. Wiley requires multi-site libraries – which they have declared we are – enter into an EAL license for electronic journal content.

We have two problems with this rigid requirement:

1. Wiley is now treating my university as a multi-campus university. Let me assure you that all other vendors treat us a single site because, while we have libraries in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have a single IP address, single president, and a single Accounts Payable for all campuses (including Rome which has 4 seminarians studying abroad!).

2. The EAL license is required for all online journal content we purchase from Wiley/Blackwell in 2010. Currently, our online-only spend is about $3,000, our print +online is over $33,000, and our total spend is about $66,000 for journal content with Wiley. What does that mean for the University of St. Thomas? We would not be able to cancel – i.e. lower our ‘current’ spend. That means that as tuition dollars dry up, as the university’s contribution to the libraries shrink, we cannot cancel titles in the Wiley contract. It’s ironic that while we would be locked into a multi-year contract during these incredibly unpredictable and difficult financial times, Wiley could change their title list at will – buying or selling titles as the market dictates.

We have spoken with your representative, Diane Conroy, and there are no alternatives IF we want online journal content from Wiley. She is adamant.

Hence, our only option is to cancel all of our online content. I assume that is not Wiley’s goal but the only one we see available to us since we cannot agree to a multi-year, dollar spend commitment. We will cancel what we can – I can see about $30,000 in cancellations (27 titles) without too much pain. We will purchase print-only in the cases where we have had print +online and we will cancel our online-only and move back to print-only. As we all know, even good content that is print-only will become marginalized by our users and as it does, we’ll easily be able to justify canceling the remaining print titles. And, of course, we will not be purchasing new journal content from Wiley.

When September comes, if we have no agreement with Wiley for 2010 permitting cancellation and permitting single year subscriptions, we will have to take these draconian steps.

I will be sharing this letter with the Wiley board of directors, others in Wiley management, the serials community, the licensing community and other colleagues in the library community.

Thank you for your attention.

We in the library community need to be prepared to bend, but not to break.  If a vendor isn’t meeting us halfway, then we need to consider walking away.  There is always more than one way to achieve our mission, and we have to have that in mind and act accordingly. I hope Wiley takes notice of this library’s action, and looks to see how it can best serve both their customers, as well as their company’s, needs.

Oracle has purchased Sun Microsystems.

This is significant on many levels.  Many of our library systems run on software or hardware from these companies.  The Voyager library I used to work for used an Oracle database running on a Sun Solaris server.  The clients (Circulation, Cataloging, Acquisitions, etc.) for III’s Millennium system run on Java.

Many web-based software platforms use MySQL (an open-source database project owned by Sun), including many, many blogs (including this one) wikis and CMS.

Many of us use OpenOffice as either their primary or as an additional office suite.

I am not saying that we are at risk for losing these foundations of our library and internet software programs.  The fact that OpenSolaris, Java, MySQL, and OpenOffice are all open source means that we can trust that they will be with us in some form for as long as there is a demand (a trust that cannot be equally placed with any closed source software, which can disappear with the collapse or acquisition of the company holding the software rights).

What I am sure of is that we will see changes.  Oracle has a strategy, or if it doesn’t, it will.  Some of these programs will likely see greater support and resources (hopefully OpenOffice), others will likely see less (hopefully none of them).  Some may become more focused towards a particular segment of the technology world (watch MySQL for this possibility).

Look at what you use, and recognize that today marks a turning point for some of the software.   Hopefully it is for the better.

found via TechCrunch and MetaFilter

For those interested in Open Source Integrated Library Systems such as Koha, Evergreen, Open Library Environment Project (OLE), OpenBiblio, etc., the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) will be holding an e-forum on April 21st and 22nd.  From the announcement:

Please join us for a free ALCTS e-forum discussion!   Participation is open to all.

April 21-22, 2009:  Open Source ILS and Technical Services:   High Risk or High Reward?

Moderated by Clint Chamberlain, University of Texas Libraries, and Rob Van Rennes, University of Iowa Libraries, members of the ALCTS CRS Acquisitions Committee.

Over the past few years, many librarians have expressed dissatisfaction with our current ILS, citing inflexible systems, high costs, and lackluster vendor service.  Some libraries have consequently pursued Open Source ILS such as OLE, Koha, and Evergreen.  Join this e-forum to share your experiences with and your questions about Open Source ILS and your thoughts on the future of the traditional, proprietary ILS.   We are particularly interested in hearing about experiences with the technical services aspects of Open Source ILS:  acquisitions, management of continuing resources, and cataloging.

Discussion will start Tuesday, April 21, 9AM EST and will conclude Wednesday, April 22, 5PM EST.

You can sign up at http://lists.ala.org/sympa/, go to the ALCTS section, then select alcts-eforum@ala.org.

I am especially interested in hearing about how the Cataloging, Acquisitions, and Circulation functions are viewed by people who use them in a production environment.  Koha and Evergreen have been making incredible progress into the library world, and I suspect that many of us will have experience with them before long.

received via SerialsT list

Notes from last month’s OLE (Open Library Environment) Regional Workshop are on LibShare, and they are interesting to scan through, especially the comments.

I found this through the Disruptive Library Technology Jester blog, and looked into it because of two quotes he included with his post:

• With print items, we’re trying to give people access; with electronic trying to keep them out.
• Isn’t it interesting that users from other libraries have borrowed print books delivered to them, but must travel to another library to get access to their electronic items.

In addition, I will add this interesting tidbit from the same set of responses:

• It used to be about selecting high quality materials, but now have to teach evaluation of available materials.

I think that sums up much of the transition we face in the library world – how to filter useful and usable information in a way that makes it useful and usable for our patrons (aren’t you glad I didn’t say “users”).  We are drinking from the fire hydrant, and the pressure is increasing!

The Tech Static is, as stated on the site, “Your collection development resource for technology titles”.

They are using a blog to house reviews of technology books and resources, and are planning to publish monthly.  It looks as though they will become an excellent resource not only for collection development, but for personal selections as well.  I am looking forward to their reviews!

from Librarian.net

The work cycle of Library Technical Services as told by the Arlington Heights Memorial Library (in the style of ER).

TS (YouTube video)

Bonus creative points for the idea of using a packing tape dispenser in the style of CPR as a defibrillator!

thanks to Cindy for passing this along

Evergreen has announced their progress on their Acquisitions portion of the open-source ils.  They are on target to have a functional acquisitions/serials capability by summer!

Take a look at their progress, noting that their vanilla interface is only in place to test functionality.  Besides, vanilla is a great flavor.

Remember how, about 10 years ago, the concept of a “paperless office” began to seem like a weird joke? The proliferation of the desktop computer and the ascent of the internet introduced the potential of foregoing paper documents, relying instead on electronic versions. The source of the joke was that instead of reducing our paper use, having access to all these e-mails, websites and electronic documents increased our print output.

An article titled Pushing Paper Out the Door in today’s New York Times documents that paper use has plateaued, and is currently in decline. The actual cause? People saving money on ink, toner and paper. This matches what I have seen in various libraries: people tend to be more conservative when their own resources are being used.

As far as printing from public workstations and labs is concerned, I like the idea of having a certain number of pages printed being included in one’s account, then paying for any additional printing. This seems to strike a balance that allows for modest printing without being overly commercial about it.

link passed to the Web4lib list by Bernie Sloan

SERU: A Shared Electronic Resource Understanding is an attempt by libraries and publishers alike to break out of the licensing process that many in both camps find problematic.

Simply put, it is a straightforward agreement that a particular library subscribes to a given resource, and that the “shared expectations” of each side will be respected.  All this with no licensing contract.  An invoice and payment, and their presence on a registry maintained by the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), serves as the legal basis for the transaction.

This reminds me of those business deals where you know that the person you are dealing with is thinking long-term, and that a handshake means more than a legal contract would with someone else.  It will be interesting to see how well this works in practice… it would be great to streamline access to information in a way that benefits everyone involved.

found via the SERIALST list

Confessions of a Rogue Library Book Buyer is an article by a former university administrator. What he did, with the aid of a complicit librarian, would make an interesting exercise for an Ethics class.

While I don’t feel that they approached the situation in the correct manner, I can certainly understand their motives (and appreciate that they focused on improving the collection). It is amazing how often faculty and departments don’t realize just what they could do for their library, majors and institutions by paying closer attention to their library allocations.

I suspect that most universities & colleges have procedures in place to deal with unused allocations, rather than letting them build up. Thought experiment : what areas of your library’s collection would most benefit from a burst of extra purchasing?

found via LISNews

Foreign Book Dealers Directory is just as described : a database of book dealers around the world that lets you search for book dealers by company, region, and country.  It is hosted by ALCTS, and seems extremely useful for those challenging acquisitions.

posted to ACQNET by Angie Cope of the American Geographical Society Library