Number range CHAPTER **Technical Services Directors of Large Research
Libraries Discussion Group\
(Big Heads)**

**[Minutes]{.underline}**

**Recorded by Angela Kinney, Library of Congress
([[anki@loc.gov)]{.underline}](mailto:(anki@loc.gov))**

**The Big Heads Web Site established by Library of Congress is at:**
[**http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads**](http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads)

**January 14, 2005**

**9:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.**

**Boston Marriott Hotel, Grand Ballroom F**

**Attendees:**

Larry Alford (University of North Carolina), Beth Picknally Camden
(University of Virginia), Mechael Charbonneau (Indiana University),
Cynthia Clark (New York Public Library), Katharine Treptow Farrell
(Princeton University), Robin Fradenburgh (University of Texas), Lisa
German (University of Illinois), Nancy Gibbs (Duke University), Arno
Kastner (New York University), Angela Kinney (Library of Congress), Lee
Leighton (Berkeley), Lynn Manko (University of Michigan), Dianne
McCutcheon, (National Library of Medicine), James Mouw (University of
Chicago), Rebecca Mugridge (Pennsylvania State), Joyce Ogburn
(University of Washington), Jane Ouderkirk (Harvard University), Bob
Persing (University of Pennsylvania), Richard Reeb (University of
Wisconsin), Sally Rogers (Ohio State University), Cynthia Shelton
(UCLA), Barbara Stelmasik (University of Minnesota), Joan Swanekamp
(Yale University), Catherine Tierney (Stanford University), Beacher
Wiggins (Library of Congress), Bob Wolven (Columbia University)

**AGENDA**

1\. Introductions and announcements (Bob Wolven, Chair)

2\. Cooperative cataloging for Western European languages (Lee Leighton)

3\. Web subject lists for e-journals: results of survey (Bob Wolven)

4\. E-Resource management system developments (Tim Jewel, Joyce Ogburn)

5\. Catalog enrichment efforts and potential for collaboration (Bob
Wolven)

**Break**

Discussion topics:

6\. Cross-collection searching of digital materials (Karen Calhoun)

7\. Whither technical services? (Bob Wolven)

> a\. Organizational impacts of e-resources, digitization, institutional
> repositories;
>
> b\. Top Ten Trends in Technical Services (with reference to Public
> Services list)
>
> c\. Declining trends: what's decreasing in importance, or being
> discontinued?
>
> d\. What's not being discussed for lack of a forum? What can we do
> about that?

**1. Introductions and announcements**

1.  Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** introduced Angela Kinney, chief of the
    Social Sciences Cataloging Division, **Library of Congress**. Angela
    replaces Judith Hopkins, who served on the committee 15 years as
    recorder. Angela announced that Library of Congress has established
    a Web site for reports, minutes and other activities of Big Heads
    at:
    [**[http://www.loc.gov/library/bigheads]{.underline}**](../www.loc.gov/bigbeads.html.).
    Committee members should forward their round robin reports for 2005
    to Angela for posting on the Web site.

2.  Two positions are open at **Pennsylvania State University**:
    assistant dean and serials cataloging librarian

3.  A position is available at the **National Library of Medicine** for
    head of cataloging.

4.  A suggestion was made on the listserv to formulate the agenda
    grouping brief topics together on progress and others that are
    exploratory. Bob followed that format with this agenda.

**2. Cooperative cataloging for Western European languages (Leighton)
(15 minutes)**

Lee Leighton **(Berkeley)** announced that Harvard, Yale, University of
Michigan, Stanford, Duke and Berkeley are collaborating on a Western
European Languages project with the intent to cope with a backlog in
these languages. The institutions exchange information about how they
catalog the works. At Berkeley cataloging staff stop their regular work
to work on one language only. The idea is to eliminate the backlog no
matter how large or old. A question was asked as to whether the
committee had thought prospectively about supporting a better hit rate
with these languages. Currently institutions are doing various things
with vendor records that will improve hit rates.

Stanford, Berkeley and Texas are involved in a cooperative cataloging
program for Latin American materials based on countries. The program is
working well concentrating on Chile, and there is an interest in
addressing other countries. The program works well and the model could
be extended to other areas as well.

Jane Ouderkirk **(Harvard)** said there are difficulties with foreign
language cataloging, because institutions catalog on their own systems
instead of the utilities. Two institutions could be cataloging the same
title fully, but neither could see the other's record. A suggestion was
made to explore programs that enable sharing of record data, including
retrospective records. Organizations could discover which titles they
have in common or are unique for vendor contracts shared.

**3. Web subject lists for e-journals: results of survey (Wolven) (15
min.)**

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** announced that the Subject Extent of Interest
in Browsing E-Journals Group conducted a survey of nine libraries to
ascertain their interest in browsing e-journals. He is not sure if all
libraries who participated in the survey are using subject access, but
all are using a vendor interface from Serials Solutions or TD-NET, or
allowing customization of sets. Some libraries are doing mapping of LC
classification, but many records lack Library of Congress classification
and are brief records created in another form. Also, the size of the
subject category lists gets very large. Bob asked whether there was any
evaluative information on the library as a means of access to journals.

Joyce Ogburn said **University of Washington** did usability tests and
found that researchers do not use subject pages. A comment was made to
provide subject browsing of databases with some full text items.

Jim Mouw **(University of Chicago)** said the journal A-Z list is the
most heavily used of all the Web pages at his institution. He stressed
that it is not necessary to maintain the same information in several
places.

Arnold Kastner said **New York University** has not done a user
satisfaction study on subject browsing of e-journals, but patrons do
want subject browses.

Lisa German, stated that **University of Illinois** has a subject list
of electronic journals maintained by selectors and dependent on people
adding journals to the lists. Many journals do not have subjects
assigned to them, something that the University of Illinois is trying
resolve.

Beth Picknally Camden said that the **University of Virginia** has a
temporary solution. Not favoring the vendor solution for a browse list,
they have a hand codes browse list based on Library of Congress
Classification. Public service librarians use it frequently.

Beacher Wiggins, **Library of Congress**, reported that recommending
officers at LC rely on one person to perform the job of maintaining a
Web subjects listing for electronic journals. Patrons appear to like it,
and LC will continue until there is an automated way of generating
subject access to e-journals.

Cynthia Clark said that **New York Public Library** has a subjects list
with two layers, a general and refined list of subjects, maintained by
public service and Web development staff. Technical services staff are
not involved, but the effort is working well. There is a need to keep up
on the coding, however. NYU has no information at present on patron use.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** acknowledged that libraries are all doing
things locally and asked if there was not potential for a more standard
solution. There was general agreement on the value of mapping LC
Classification, but consensus was that there is no potential for
coordination of a more standard solution, because institutions cannot
agree on subject categories and everyone wants to do things their own
way. This is a subject for further exploration, Wolven commented.

Joyce Ogburn **(University of Washington)** commented that there is
tension between personalized and public use of subject lists of
e-journals. Libraries need to find out more about how users use
information and think about what goes into it.

Karen Calhoun of **Cornell** said she would hate to give up the idea of
sharing subject categories for e-journals, but agreed that it is a
political process to come up with terminology. Cornell is collaborating
with Columbia University to use their classification mappings. Cornell
has tried to use Columbia's list for its 100,000 title print collection
and had to make it more granular in some places and less in others, but
a beginning is there, and Cornell wants to see a combination of both.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** concluded the discussion by saying
that he would like to see further thoughts on how to pursue a
collaboration on subject mappings. Those using LC Classification can
share and compare their ideas and begin looking at possible
collaborations by giving their thoughts on the Big Heads listserv. Bob
will send a report on this discussion back through the listserv. It was
suggested that since nine libraries only responded to the survey, that
others be given an opportunity to respond also via email.

**4. E-Resource Management System Developments (Jewell, Ogburn)**

Joyce Ogburn and Tim Jewell **(University of Washington)** reported on
efforts to establish an electronic resource management system at the
Digital Library Federation. Tim is spearheading the effort. For more
information about the developments, consult
[[http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/home.html]{.underline}](http://www.library.cornell.edu/cts/elicensestudy/home.html).

Tim noted that Big Heads sponsored discussion groups at ALA Midwinter
and Annual 2004 that gave legitimacy to thinking about e-resource
management system developments. Libraries are now in the process of
creating a joint ALCTS/LITA e-resource management interest group. The
group submitted a paper on this topic at ALA Midwinter 2005 and another
will be submitted possibly for the ALA Annual 2005 conference.

Tim Jewell **(University of Washington)** reported that the Digital
Library Federation's e-resource management initiative (ERMI) grew out of
the realization that existing ILS's do not do enough to manage
e-resources. The ERMI was created October 2003 with a plan to describe
the architecture needed, derive a data dictionary and work on the
related XML data needed. The steering group headed up by Tim includes
representatives from Harvard, Cornell, UCLA, Yale, University of
Washington and Johns Hopkins University, with a subgroup of libraries
and vendors. Deliverables have been identified, problems defined, and a
road map has been constructed with a list of functional requirements.
The steering group will issue its report in August 2005 and will make it
available very soon in print from CLIR.

A list of commercial systems devoted to electronic resource management
that are either currently available in the marketplace or announced as
under development appears on the DLF Web site. The vendors include
Colorado Alliance, EBSCO, Endeavor Information Systems, Exlibris,
Innovative Interfaces and VTLS. Dynix, CIRSI, and Serials Solutions
tried to address consortial functionality with mixed success. At UCLA,
much activity is going on with regard to e-resource management and they
are happy at vendor reaction.

An invitational meeting was held in October 2004 of vendors and
libraries to discuss the ERMI report and access development. It was a
productive meeting and notes will soon be available on the DLF Web site.
Up for discussion were issues of rights expression languages. Also under
discussion in London in December were topics on relationships of ERMI
documents and the interests of Editur, who is looking at the ERMI data
dictionary and suggesting places where it could be structured better.
The ERMI steering committee's work is done, but members continue to look
for ways to propel work on e-resource management services. Several have
an ongoing interest in seeing that the work is a success.

Some issues that remain outstanding are consortial functionality and
usage data. Adam Chandler and Tim are talking about an offshoot ERMI
project related to usage data. Adam wrote a program that will ingest
usage data into the ERMI model. Tim is interested in defining
functionality and what the usage data mini module should look like.
Other issues for consideration include: a continuing interest in serials
description and holdings information, standard identifiers, the data
dictionary of the Editur group, and interest in pursuing a standard way
of describing license terms and rights, a complicated undertaking with
lots of issues. University of Washington is looking at ways of
converting licenses into an automated program, to make terms available
to staff and users. At present this is not done and it is costly not to
have this information. Staff cannot take advantage of e-resources
available because the information is not transparent. Within the ERMI
steering group, there is concern about needing to be on top of fair use
rights and understand what we can and cannot do.

In summary, vendor developments are ongoing, with demos of Exlibris
products. There is ongoing focus on licensing terms that requires a
collaborative approach with people who understand licensing requirements
and copyright law and need to share implementation information. Endeavor
is interested in putting together a pre-conference on making e-resources
"management real." There are a number of libraries with various
experiences working with triple systems and ExLibris products. Big Heads
needs to find a way to pull together these experiences.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** commented that most libraries are
involved in e-resource management but are not able to share information.
He asked how the committee would go about discussing this.

Cindy Shelton **(UCLA)** expressed interest in the topic of consortial
ERMS and asked if anyone was thinking of surveying institutions on this
topic.

Karen Calhoun said that **Cornell** has not been asked to look at
product information from a consortial viewpoint. It is inevitable that
they would be asked and they already have.

Beacher Wiggins, **Library of Congress**, expressed interest in knowing
the practical aspects of a consortium and how much work it would take.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** will hold the topic for discussion also at ALA
Annual 2005, when the committee might be able to further explore some of
the things they want to see happen.

Tim Jewell **(University of Washington)** referred again to the
discussion at the October meeting on XML and interoperability. He
emphasized again the need to be able to move data from library to
library, from vendor to library and consortia to consortia, to come up
with a standard way to describe rights management that vendors can use
and hand off to libraries. ERMI was mentioned, but a clearer definition
of what that signifies must be agreed upon.

Catherine Tierney said **Stanford** signed on the dotted line for this
type of system based on data from ERMI, and applauded Tim for going
forward with this initiative. It is evident she said that the group is
discussing internal controlling as well as access for users, embedded
links in the catalog and how all of this interacts, but she thought that
there will never be a "one size fits all" way of doing it. Stanford
would benefit from hearing issues from other institutions.

Richard Reeb, **University of Wisconsin**, wanted to address how to
improve licensing terms, especially for interlibrary loan. University of
Wisconsin is trying to develop a database for this information and hopes
to have it ready in the next few months, and populate it with the top
twenty publishing licenses that will cover 20% of the data they receive.
He agreed to share the structure of his database.

Dianne McCutcheon of the **National Library of Medicine** said the next
area to look at is to work with publishers on standard licenses that
could be developed to assist with simplifying and finding uniformity
with writing and automating this data.

Tim Jewell **(University of Washington)** recalled an initiative through
the LibLicense Web page that provides interlibrary loan information for
American publishers. The committee needs to find ways to share this sort
of information.

Jim Mouw of the **University of Chicago** said that the NISO Editeur
steering committee is interested in the concept of defining data
statistics between publishers. He advised the group to watch email for
more information on this.

Nancy Gibbs, **Duke University**, said her institution experimented with
an ERMI light project with 15 e-resources. She stated that subject
librarians want to know about e-resources because the licenses reside in
acquisitions and they do not have access to this information. The
project, which was the product of a Duke University intern, worked out
well. Ninety percent of the licenses have the exact information as
contained in other libraries.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** commented that it is encouraging that
publishers were at the ERMI meeting and that they need libraries to help
them guide the process.

Dianne McCutcheon **(National Library of Medicine)** is interested in
the next frontier for capturing this sort of information, such as
digitization agreements that libraries are developing.

**5. Catalog enrichment efforts and potential for collaboration (Wolven)
(15 minutes)**

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** said there are several libraries doing things
to enhance records, including scanning and indexing of content. Efforts
are underway to maximize the benefits of sharing the results of the
work. This discussion has taken place at many libraries and he is
interested in the mechanics of how this is done.

Beacher said that the Library of Congress is engaged in a project for
the past decade under the Bibliographic Enrichment Advisory Team (BEAT)
that focuses on such enhancements to bibliographic data. BEAT initially
focused on adding tables of contents to catalog records, using records
from the Cataloging in Publications Program at Library of Congress,
scanning tables of content data and linking that to the records. BEAT
has expanded to include "webliography" projects, where LC is digitizing
full access to items captured on the Web by reference staff, linking
from the item to tables of contents and full text, getting the user to
see full text in electronic form. Most of the work is done using
paraprofessional staff and through automated means, working with the
publishing community to use ONIX data supplied by ten publishing houses.
The publishers give LC access to the data in ONIX format, LC loads the
data and pulls it into a MARC record (i.e.: TOC, summaries, information
on the author) and creates a link to the MARC record. There is also a
component of BEAT with H-Net where LC gets review articles on
publications and links to those. These are all areas in which LC
collaborates with the publishing industry.

Library of Congress also wants to capture public domain data and add
that to its database. So far LC has takers from three institutions to
automate public domain data gotten by Text Capture and Electronic
Conversion (TCEC). LC can share this information if there is interest
from colleagues. There is also a series component to the BEAT project.
Collaborating with the World Bank, LC accesses their online database,
capturing technical reports and producing data from these records loaded
into MARC records linked by a single series. The Social Sciences
Cataloging Division at LC is leading the charge on this through the
Business and Economics Team.

RichCat, a project under the direction of the Network Development & MARC
Standards Office at LC, is developing a prototype created in PDF,
capturing scanned bibliographic data other institutions are also
collecting, and sharing this data across institutions. All this will be
done without additional resources from the budget. These BEAT projects
are spearheaded by John Byrum, chief of the Regional & Cooperative
Cataloging Division at LC.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** noted that many results of BEAT's work are
showing up in Columbia University's catalog and are a nice addition to
the catalog. He expressed interest in what others are doing. At present,
Columbia University is scanning tables of content data from East Asian
materials.

Joyce Ogburn agreed that **University of Washington** has also benefited
from the BEAT project when the data has shown up in copy cataloging.
University of Washington did a white paper on this topic and there was
general disagreement on judgment of the quality of the material in the
link.

Joan Ouderkirk said that **Harvard University** does not do a lot of
linking to BEAT data, but users of its collections have noted occasional
broken links in the data.

**New York University** is not doing scanning of tables of contents
data. NYU does not want to send big sets yet until they learn more about
this, because there is great frustration with links to TOC data. Users
always expect to get full text and there are continual complaints from
public service users about this.

James Mouw agreed that the **University of Chicago** patron expects to
sees tables of contents and full text, and that there is frustration
because the external link is not indexed.

The **University of Virginia** has a tables of contents project that
allows the user to search only those records that link to full text.

Katharine Treptow Farrell noted that there has been some concern at
**Princeton University** from public services staff about links that
lead only to publisher information, or tables of contents being
misleading when users expect to find full text. These links are not
routinely removed from records, considering some information better than
none.

Rebecca Mugridge **(Pennsylvania State)** mentioned that tables of
contents data is not searchable.

The **National Library of Medicine** has access to tables of contents
data through a cooperative arrangement with Library of Congress, and
their users know they will not link to the full text.

Bob Wolven said **Columbia University** subscribes to Blackwell's tables
of contents data, but overlaps with LC tables of contents. Blackwell's
tables of contents has the added benefit of searching capability.

Beacher Wiggins said that **Library of Congress** has not been told
there is a problem registered by users in not finding full text in
tables of contents supplied by LC, but there is disagreement between
cataloging staff and public services staff about linking to reviews.
Supplying reviews moves beyond the boundary of what reference staff want
to provide, because reviews vary in content. Some can be positive and
others negative.

Catherine Tierney **(Stanford)** commented that copyright hopefully will
be straightened out soon so that institutions can link to more data.
Libraries should listen to patrons to see what they are expecting and
respond to that. She further said that more access is coming through
OpenWorld Cat and Google, and that it may not be practicable to do
bibliographic record enhancement locally in the future.

**6. Cross-collections searching of digital materials (Calhoun)**

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** presented a handout, Background
Material for "An Integrated Framework for Cornell University Library
Digital Collections." The report was the result of a discussion at the
ALA Annual 2004 conference on cross-collection searching of digital
materials within institutions, searching collections side by side as if
they were one. Karen said the Open Archives Initiative has a best
practices working group that focuses on a service that provides
collaboration on cross-searching systems. Employing a list of user
requirements, the Integrated Framework Research Team in charge of the
project at Cornell analyzed seven systems that are providing
cross-searching of digital collections.

1\. RLG Cultural Materials:
[http://culturalmaterials.rlg.org/](http://culturalmaterials.rlg.lorg/)

[2. University of Washington Digital
Collections:](http://culturalmaterials.rlg.lorg/)
[http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-
bn/advsearch.exe](http://content.lib.washington.edu/cgi-bin/advsearch.exe)

3\. OAIster: <http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/>

4\. Cornell example (George Kozak):
[http://libdev.library.cornell.edu:8090/](http://libdev.library/cornell.edu:8090/)

5\. NSDL: <http://www.nsdl.org/>

6\. New Zealand Digital Library:
<http://discover.natlib.govt.nz/index.shtml>

7\. The European Library (TEL):
<http://krait.kb.nl/coop/tel/portal/portal.html>

**Observations:**

The systems were widely varied but did share some common
characteristics. Most allowed for browsing, at least by collection, and
a few had cross-collection browsing capabilities. Most allowed for both
a basic and advanced search, although basic keyword searching was the
most common and prominent way of searching. Limiting and sorting options
were available on many with three systems, allowing for pre-limits and
one allowing for post-limiting. The most successful limiting options
involved limiting by format (text, image, video, etc.). The ability to
sort results was not widely available, with only two allowing for very
limited sorting of results. Output options were also very weak across
the systems. Only one system allowed for the marking and saving of
objects and none had the capability to email records. Output options
were considered desirable in the interviews held with stakeholders. More
advanced features such as personalization were also lacking, with only
one system allowing for the storing of favorites.

Functionality was compared to what the research team that included
members of public services staff put together as user requirements. The
team fell short, because there was a disconnect between expectations of
library staff for a system built and resulting from catalogs. Library
staff were looking for boolean or advanced searches, rather than how
users actually behave when they use cross-collections searching systems.
Karen Calhoun commented that it might be early to discuss this topic,
and asked if there was interest among the committee and if so, what are
the challenges.

Dianne McCutcheon **(National Library of Medicine)** said NLM has
multiple ways of searching through Voyager and Encompass, and are
looking at ways of searching images. It is useful to have books and
images searched simultaneously, but she wondered if users are interested
in seeing all of this together, and how the information is digested if
the resulting displays are too large.

Beth Picknally Camden **(University of Virginia)** said the ultimate
goal is to bring the richness of all projects together. The University
of Virginia has spent time on metadata mapping to do cross-collection
searching and it is detailed work to get there. A prototype is not yet
in operation.

Rebecca Mugridge **(Pennsylvania State)** said her institution is
interested in using varieties of software packages for newspapers and
monographs, searching across those packages. Pennsylvania State is in
the beginning stages of looking at this.

**Cornell** has a number of different digital projects and is
contemplating whether these collections really go together, said Karen
Calhoun. She explained that there are many ways of putting together
multi-scale collections (i.e.: American Memory) to satisfy the
multi-levels of granularity that users need.

The discussion ended with Bob Wolven **(Columbia)** asking how one
avoids the "hodge-podge" of searching across digital collections, and
who is making these decisions. Catherine Tierney (**Stanford
University**) agreed that close attention needs to be paid to this.

**7. Whither technical services (Wolven)**

**a. Organizational impacts of e-resources, digitization, institutional
repositories**

The discussion began with how the digital realm is affecting technical
services. How are libraries organizing to manage e-resources, integrated
or centralized within their departments?

Lee Leighton said **Berkeley** has made progress in integrating
e-resources, having gone from a unit concept to a team concept, where
acquisitions staff are integrated with serials catalogers. He asserted
that information must flow well between units in the electronic world as
it does in the analog environment.

Lisa German **(University of Illinois)** said these sorts of initiatives
work best when everyone that should be is at the table (i.e.
stakeholders from acquisitions, cataloging, interlibrary loan, and
information technology). Organizations need to look at things across
different responsibilities so that the work gets done.

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell)** maintained that functional divisions that
have been stable for 50 years or so are holding back progress. Although
a replacement does not come to mind, she concurred that organizations
need more team-based structure. Cornell is more project driven, with
ideas that coalesce around a project and when it is done, staff move on
to another project.

Nancy Gibb **(Duke University)** asked if stakeholders need to have
input into decisions made on e-resource management, whatever their
responsibilities are.

Arno Kastner **(New York University)** thought that more work is
interdepartmental and that it makes it difficult to discuss this topic,
because it is hard to keep abreast of issues within one's own
institution when the work is interdepartmental.

**b. Top Ten Trends in Technical Services (with reference to Public
Services list)**

Karen Calhoun **(Cornell University)** distributed the results of a
survey, "Top Ten Trends in Public Services" from ACRL/ULS Public Service
Directors of Large Research Libraries. Bob Wolven **(Columbia
University)** suggested doing the same for technical services.

The top 10 trends are as follows:

1\. Institutional repositories

2\. Marketing/promotion of services

3\. Recruitment of staff

4\. Scholarly communications

5\. Providing seamless services to the desktop

6\. Staff training and development

7\. Trends and directions in information technology

8\. University partnerships between the libraries and faculty

9\. (tie) Services to alumni/donors

9\. (tie) Space

9\. (tie) "With Google, I don't need you anymore"

10\. (tie) Integrating library resources into Course Management systems

10\. (tie) Learning communities in the libraries

**Citations of reduced or discontinued activities (from the same
source):**

Canceling duplicate serial subscriptions

Canceling paper subscriptions for journals available online

Closing/merging smaller libraries, or reducing space and collections

Cutting positions and/or imposing waiting periods before posting

Reducing first-time binding

Relying on e-dissertations

Greater attention to consortial holdings in selection decisions

Fewer monographs accepted on approval

**c. Declining Trends: what's decreasing in importance, or being
discontinued?**

Jane Ouderkirk **(Harvard)** said that there are three areas of access:
print, Web 3 and intelligent agent software. In five years, Harvard's
catalog will be secondary to other data management systems. Harvard will
have to define what it is that only it can do and what it is that only
its library holds.

Robin Fradenburgh **(University of Texas)** stated that there is a sense
at her institution that too much funding is invested in technical
services. There is a push to do something different. She asked what will
happen when Library of Congress changes the way they do things.

Larry Alford **(University of North Carolina)** overheard a conversation
students were having about the reasons they use libraries. One of the
reasons was that it is a place to gather to meet friends. Libraries are
rapidly losing users on campus and this poses a serious threat to
library use. Colleagues in public libraries he said are addressing this
directly. This is an issue that Big Heads needs to also address.

Joan Swanekamp **(Yale University)** said Yale is grappling with old
print collections that will continue to exist. The issue is how to find
balance to move to doing new things. Yale has a legacy staff and is
facing a wave of retirement. It is important to find out what skill sets
need to be bridged between old methods and new. There is much training
to do and a need to bring in new people with the right skills.

A comment was made that there is a need to move to providing data
structures, now that it seems users are not coming so often to libraries
and instead are coming on the Web. Libraries need to be experts in
management of data structures, sharing that information to carry the
role they have played so far into today's environment.

Dianne McCutcheon **(National Library of Medicine)** was of the opinion
that library administrators should not think about being upset that no
one is using libraries, but rather focus more on whether libraries are
providing information the user needs.

Larry Alford **(University of North Carolina)** agreed, saying that
technical service librarians need to figure out how to structure data so
it can be integrated into Google and Yahoo. Much of what has been done
is dark to students. Libraries now have an opportunity to transform
buildings in new and different ways.

Lynn Manko **(University of Michigan)** said that a "library without
walls" is a meaningful operation in how we deliver services to users
now. The question is how we can deliver services to non-authenticated
users, those who can no longer access these collections.

Bob Wolven **(Columbia University)** said libraries spend millions on
items that are not used and that eventually are moved to storage.
Building costs for storage are major. Libraries are spending lots of
money housing and cataloging these collections.

**d. What's not being discussed for lack of a forum? What can we do
about that?**

No comments were made in this area, and the meeting concluded at this
juncture.