Minutes of April 5, 2001 OAC Meeting

MS Word version (24K)

1. Introductions

   See the attached list of campus library participants.

   
   

2. Research Committee objectives - Gary Lawrence

   Round table comments contributed from the group were most often in the form of questions including:

   • Scattered storage of individual series increases challenge of consistency of data.

   • Will there be a reasonable/equal number of control/experimental titles?

   • Will a library/campus be able to participate with both control/experimental titles?

   • Publisher resource liaisons at campus libraries find data management and reporting time consuming. Will this be more or less of a hassle for them?

   • Will only CDL titles be used? There is an interest in those licensed by individual campuses. (Like American Phil. Soc.) However no ASCII text only versions will be included.

   • Berkeley may have data and data gathering routines to provide before and after statistics to compliment the study.

   • Are we anticipating CDL implementation of desktop delivery near the end of the experiment?

   • Will the different size and characteristics of campuses, libraries or disciplines be factored in? Beverly French and Mark McCabe are gathering data on UC disciplines and faculty/student numbers this might be used.

   • What about non-UC usage?

   • Will Human Subjects Committees review be required?

   • Who will be needed for campus surveys? Top bibliographers, faculty counterparts. Can other users volunteer? How often will the surveys be? What will be the point of access? Will the survey examine perception versus measured functionality?

   
   
   

3. Report on development of eJournal database of titles currently licensed by CDL - Cecily Johns

   • Progress has been made on defining preliminary fields.

   • CDL has provided initial data to populate fields.

   • Goal is to have a first working version by April 20.

   Suggested additional fields:

   • ILL complications (this requires licenses information)
   • Course reserves
   • Simultaneous use
   • Holdings and if they are an experimental or control title.
   • Date of coverage
   • Authoritative version
   • Content characteristics

   
   
   

4. Working sub groups proposed - Cecily Johns

   • Cecily outlined the areas that need a working group to prepare recommendations, specifications or methodologies that would work with in the research framework.

   • The draft charges were discussed and individuals were asked to sign up indicating which two areas they would like to contribute to.

   • There was round table discussion of expectations for each working sub group and a preliminary date for reports was set for June 1.

   • See attached Sub Group Charges and membership assignments.

   
   
   

5. Next steps

   • Brain Schottlaender will send a letter to UL's asking for firm commitment.

   • CMI will discuss the project as presently conceived with CMPG and UL SOPAG

   • CMI will provide list of potential titles to campuses to start the selection process.

   • Chairs of OAC working sub groups need to convene (virtual or real) with other members and begin addressing charges for June 1st goal.

   • Members of the OAC begin communicating with faculty counter parts with Journal selection as a starting point.