Cornell University Library Staff Web Page

Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to SMG Index

Cornell University Library

Senior Management Group

Notes for the meeting on January 29, 1997

Attending: Ross Atkinson, Lee Cartmill, Claire Germain, Tom Hickerson, Gordon Law, Catherine Murray-Rust, Jan Olsen, Pat Schafer, Sarah Thomas, Ed Weissman.

1. Task force on a common entry-way to Library resources--charge and membership
Following up on SMG's decision to appoint a task force to implement a common entry-way to Library resources, Catherine distributed a draft charge for the task force based on her conversations with the Instruction and Reference Program Committee. This common electronic entry way is referred to as "an official 'CUL' user interface" in the Distillation of the Working Group Recommendations - 11/6/96 document and as the "single point of entry" in earlier documents.

Proposed Charge

The Task Force is charged with developing a process to move from multiple points of access (various web sites, Bear Access, the Mann Gateway, etc.) to a common entry-way to the Library's resources. The proposed common entry-way will be based the work of the Digital Library Working Group and take into account more recent developments such as the selection of a new library management system and the proposed replacement by CIT of Bear Access.

The task force specifically shall:

1. Propose feasible screen design(s) for the common entry-way, a timetable for their implementation, and a project plan that address issues of maintenance and support.
2. Recommend revisions to Bear Access and other current points of access that will help the public make the transition to a common entry-way.
3. Work, as necessary with other groups to influence relevant developments, such as CIT's proposed replacement for Bear Access and the selection of a new library management system.

Proposed members

Members of the task force were recommended by Lance Heidig and Barbara Prior, co-chairs of the Instruction and Reference Program committee, at Catherine's request. Volunteers have also been solicited.

We discussed the charge and membership of the task force for the common user entry-way and agreed on the following:

• that the presentation of the user interface can not be divorced from metadata and, therefore, there needs to be overlap in membership between this group and the Metadata Implementation Task Force which is now being formed.
• that there needs to be a point of reference in the group's charge to the distillation document distributed for the November 11 professional staff meeting on the digital library specifically including the definition of the CUL User Interface.
• that SMG is the originator of the charge and that the chair of the working group should meet regularly (every 3-4 weeks) with SMG so that SMG can assess the implications of decisions and recommendations the group is working on.
• that there is a relationship between the selection of a new LMS and the transition to a common entry way. The task force needs to keep informed about the LMS process, CIT's goals for Bear Access, and other outside factors that will impact the common entry-way.
• the membership of the group. SMG reviewed the names of suggested members and also suggested some additional names.

Catherine will revise the charge and membership list based on our discussion.

Ross said he would distribute the charge and membership of the Metadata Implementation Task Force to SMG-L. [DONE 1/29/97].

2. New Library Management System steering committee and technical committee charges and membership
We reviewed and endorsed the current membership of the committee responsible for the technical and functional evaluation of new Library Management Systems (formerly the "RFI Group".) The committee has representatives from all the functional areas plus CIT. These representatives will be expected to chair implementation groups to look at functional specifications in their areas of expertise. When vendors are invited to campus, the demonstrations will be open to the CUL staff. Committee members will also be meeting with vendors off campus, e.g., at the ALA Midwinter Conference in Washington next month. Sarah will suggest people to serve on the Steering Committee and the membership and charge of the Steering Committee will be discussed at next week's meeting.

We agreed to set up a schedule that would allow us to implement a new LMS in June 1998, but that would recognize that because of funding, contracts, and technical issues, the implementation might not take place until June 1999. We discussed the potential negative effect on morale if we did not achieve a June 1998 target, and the possible difficulty in devoting energy to the selection process if the target were not June 1998. The Library must be flexible in its approach because there are too many ambiguities at this point. There are costs to delaying, and Catherine was asked to prepare a list of such costs for SMG. These costs need to be balanced against costs the Library might have to absorb if we pursue the fast track timetable.

Sarah said that while there has been no university funding allocated for a new LMS, she is hopeful that there will be support for this in Day Hall. The recent decision by Day Hall to pay for the Offsite Facility provides CUL with some financial flexibility to begin searching for a new system now. Nevertheless, the allocation of costs for the purchase, operation and maintenance of the new LMS will need to be worked out. It was suggested that any approach to the statutory deans with regard to this be coordinated with the statutory unit librarians.

3. RLG's future: what does Cornell want from RLG
We discussed our perspectives on RLG in order to provide Sarah with background for the RLG Key Member Institution Meeting she will attend on 2/7/97. [Sarah distributed the agenda for this meeting to SMG-L on 1/29/97]. Issues raised included the loss of the "pioneering spirit" and "ferment" with the demise of the program committees, the importance of RLG taking an international focus, the possible role of RLG in digital archiving, and the cost of maintaining "two national databases."

Agenda items 4-6 were deferred until the next meeting. These are:

4. OCLC's Preview Program for its new electronic journals service, "Electronic Collections Online" and its relationship to other full-text initiatives

5. Status of Digital Library Storage issues (the EPOCH epic)

6. Grants: Workshops, Committee, Grant Pool

Finally, Ross distributed a short issues document, "Three Pressure Points," about selecting electronic resources. He originally distributed this to selectors at the Sept 26, 1996 General Selectors meeting. He would like to discuss these issues at a future meeting.

SMG will next meet on Wednesday, February 5.

Edward Weissman (recorder)

Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to SMG Index

rev. 2/13/97 dih