PUBLIC SERVICES FORUM

8 November 1999

RWA Notes

1. Y2K. As part of the transition to the new millenium, CIT is planning to bring down the mainframe for around three days between 30 December and 2 January. This is still in the planning stages right now and DLIT will keep us informed. During that time NOTIS and the Gateway will not be accessible. DLIT will be providing the Library with the full information on these plans shortly. While CIT intends to inform the CU community about this, it will be important for the Library also to have its own strategy to ensure that users are aware that they will not have access to Library digital services during this period. (One hopes everyone will understand the need for this. After all, this should be necessary only once every thousand years--so I assume CIT shouldn't need to do it again until 2999.)

2. Patron Data Migration. Susan Currie explained that, while Endeavor will migrate most circulation information from NOTIS, it will not migrate the patron file; so this will be something we will need to do ourselves. A patron database subcommittee of the IMT--which consists of Susan, Peter Hoyt, Howard Raskin, and Sara Spoonhower--is working on this. They are now evaluating the information in the patron file to determine how it will migrate. An ASPC committee is also reviewing the patron accounting file. The plan at this point is to migrate all active records, as well as all inactive records that have some actions (e.g., outstanding fines) attached to them. Susan said her real concern is not so much the migration from NOTIS to Endeavor, which we have some control over, but rather how well Endeavor will work with data provided by PeopleSoft. This led to some brief speculations about the potential effect on the University and the Library, if the decision were made to replace PeopleSoft with another system. Susan noted also that, when the cut-over from NOTIS to Endeavor takes place in June, there will be a short time during which we will have no online circulation system, so that we will need to circulate materials manually. IMT is selecting this time carefully, so that it will not happen during one of the summer sessions. Much more information will be available on this, as planning continues.

3. North Campus. Pat Schafer reported that the work of the Cornell North Campus Committee, upon which she served as the Library representative, has been completed. Its final report is at http://www.campuslife.cornell.edu/Residential_Initiative/final.north.html . Beginning in fall 2001, all freshman will be located on North Campus; this is being done to assist their adjustment to Cornell, and also to provide them with a sense that they all belong to the same class, regardless of their particular college affiliations. Pat pointed out a number of areas, in which the Library could play a role. The report recommends that a Resource Center be created on North Campus, where freshmen could obtain a range of information about University activities and services. Pat said that the Library should have input into the training of anyone who works at such a Resource Center, to ensure that full and correct information about Library services are provided. The Committee also suggested that there be faculty mentors from particular academic programs assigned to North Campus residences. We should also make certain, Pat said, that these faculty members are aware of Library services, so that they can relay that information to students. As different parts of the Committee report are approved and implemented, the Library should be prepared to continue to provide input and assistance.

4. Disabilities Policy. The draft Library policy on services to people with disabilities has been reviewed by University Counsel, so we are now nearly ready to implement it. The final step will be the creation of a Web page specifically for people with disabilities, that will include the new policy, as well as any other information of interest to users who require special assistance because of disabilities. This policy is a result of the work of a Task Force, which was chaired by Stuart Basefsky. The policy is adapted directly from the recommendations in the Task Force report. In addition, there is a one-page public statement for users, which will be passed to the Documentation Committee. On the public statement, users with disabilities are encouraged to make their needs known to the Library, and to adopt a particular unit library as their "home" library. Normally this "home" library will be the one the user would expect to make the most use of--however, it could happen that the unit library most needed by the particular user may be for whatever reason not easily accessible; in that case, the user is encouraged to adopt another unit as his or her "home" library. It could happen, therefore, that a unit library might end up assisting a user on a regular basis who needs materials in another library; this would certainly be an infrequent occurrence, but we should be prepared for it, in the event the library most needed is inaccessible to someone with a particular type of disability.

   Marty Schlabach asked whether the policy defines the extent to which libraries are expected to provide assistance to people with disabilities. I answered that it does not specifically: this is very difficult to define in any case, because much depends upon the kind of disability. In general, we should aim to provide as much assistance to primary users with disabilities as we possibly can, to the extent that it does not seriously impair our ability to provide services to our other primary users.

   Carmen Blankinship will be the Library's primary contact person for disability services. In order to implement the policy, each Library unit will need to take three actions. First, each unit should designate a unit contact person, to work with Carmen. Some training will be provided for public service staff. Second, each unit will need to put together a brief materials access policy. This policy should include such information as access points for people with disabilities, types of special equipment available in the unit, as well as a statement of any parts of the collection or services that are not easily available to people with certain disabilities, and alternative procedures for providing people with disabilities access to those collections or services. Third, each unit should produce a brief annual report, which would provide an inventory of special equipment, along with a general description of particular services provided for people with disabilities during the preceding year. I will send a fuller explanation to all unit heads, along with a copy of the policy.

5. DigiRef. Paul Constantine described the plan LC is leading to create an international cooperative digital reference service--accessible anytime, anywhere. All types of libraries from around the world have been participating in this planning. A few research libraries, including Cornell, are taking part. Paul is representing us on the planning group, and I have also attended some of the meetings. Paul explained that there are two main thrusts of the plan so far. One is to provide 24/7 service to anyone who may need it--which would be possible worldwide because of time zone differences. The other is to put in place a system that will permit librarians in one library to refer difficult questions to experts in other libraries. A major point of contention is whether such questions should be user initiated, or whether the questions should be sent through library staff (along the lines of ILL). There are strong feelings, Paul said, on both sides of this issue. Some reference staff in smaller libraries are apparently concerned that such a system of referrals might affect their job security, and that parts of their jobs might ultimately be outsourced. Other libraries are considering whether such a system might be based upon some kind of fee structure, providing an opportunity for revenue. Several pilot projects are being planned, including one scheduled for February to study interoperability. Also, as part of this project, the possibility of a large FAQ is being considered. This would consist of answers to real reference questions, and it would be intended to reduce the need for different reference librarians in different places to answer the same questions. Brett Butler is working with LC to devise a database that could accommodate a very large FAQ. LC is hoping to announce its plan publicly at Midwinter, although there is obviously an enormous amount of work still to be done. Paul and others noted that many of these services (e.g., referring to experts at other institutions) are already in place; the LC plan would serve mainly to systematize those practices more effectively. Lenore said that the music librarians have a listserv, which is archived, and through which they refer questions to each other: as part of this project, therefore, LC might want to tap into some subject-based cooperative reference programs already in place.

6. e-Books. I summarized the project we are planning with Columbia, Dartmouth and Middlebury to purchase ca. 1,000 e-books from netLibrary. Greg Lawrence is project manager for Cornell. All four institutions will have access to only a single copy--although, if we find there is serious contention, we may need to purchase additional copies of particular items. We will be paying the access fee that allows for permanent access, so that after the conclusion of the project, we will still have access to these e-books indefinitely. We should already hold paper copies of all of these materials, because they are all from standard scholarly publishers. The group of four institutions has decided on a "circulation" time of two hours--so any user will be able to read in any e-book for that amount of time. If, after two hours, the user wants to read further, he or she can check the item out again (provided that no one else is using it) for another two hours. Jill was concerned that the contention might be very high for some of these materials--especially if we want to put them on reserve. This is, of course, one of the things we want to test in the project. Needless to say, we want to avoid frustrating anyone, so we need a good method to identify serious contention when it happens. At the same time, however, this is an unprecedented opportunity to experiment with the practicability of joint ownership of a single digital document. What we learn from this could be very useful to cooperative projects in future. (Of course, we may also learn that it simply does not work.) While most of the funding pooled by the four institutions will be used for an initial selection of e-books by selectors, approximately one-fifth of the funding available will be used for user initiated selection. Unlike the other three project partners, we will probably restrict this part of the project to a limited number of users.

7. New Staff. Marty Schlabach introduced Jay Datema, who is a new public services librarian in Mann.

Minutes recorded by Ross Atkinson.

StaffWeb Index | Back to Committee Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index

11/9/99, mc