Peak Bodies Forum 2005

Papers for Peak Bodies Forum, 2005

12 December 2005
Council Room, National Library of Australia

Agenda

  1. Welcome and introductions
  2. Minutes of the previous meeting
  3. Libraries in the Online Environment recommendations: update on developments, including National Licensing
  4. Digital repository developments and issues: for discussion
  5. Improving access to Australia's libraries
  6. Libraries Australia update, including promotion of the availability of the free Libraries Australia service: for discussion
  7. Resource Sharing, including the proposed Resource Sharing Forum, and Interlending issues.
  8. The future of the catalogue: for discussion
  9. New technologies demonstration and discussion
  10. Copyright issues: an update
  11. Parliamentary Papers Series inquiry
  12. Libraries and the education sector
  13. Education for librarianship: for discussion (Gill Hallam)
  14. National Broadband Strategy (Jennefer Nicholson)
  15. Collections Council of Australia: update report (Anne-Marie Schwirtlich)
  16. Council of Australian State Libraries: update report (Anne-Marie Schwirtlich)
  17. Council of Australian University Librarians: update report
  18. Other business

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 3.
Update on activities related to recommendations in Libraries in the Online Environment

In October 2003 the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee tabled its report into Libraries in the Online Environment. The Report contained eleven recommendations which reflected the key issues that emerged during the inquiry. Between July and August 2002 the Committee received 155 submissions. The majority of these were from the public and university library sectors.

The Australian Government responded to the report in June 2004. There was strong support for the principles espoused in the report relating to ‘national information strategies’. While none of the recommendations for additional funding for library initiatives was supported, the National Library in collaboration with the Australian libraries has made good progress on achieving some of the key recommendations. A summary of actions follows.

Recommendation 1.
The Committee recommends that the National Library of
Australia receive additional funding to provide improved access to Kinetica for all Australian libraries and end users.
The National Library has revised its business model for Libraries Australia and will be providing a free search interface to Libraries Australia for users to access through their local libraries or directly from their home, work or place of study. The free service will be launched in February 2006. Further discussion of this issue will take place under Item 7.

Recommendation 2.
The Committee recommends that whenever the Australian Government advertises its electronic services, it adds a statement to the effect that further information can be obtained from the local public library.
Public Libraries Australia may wish to comment on this recommendation.

Recommendation 3.
The Committee recommends:

  • the continuation of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Community Heritage Grants digitisation program; and
  • the addition of a new National Heritage Grants program for peak cultural institutions to assist in the digitisation of their collections

The Community Heritage Grants Program (CHG) is administered by the Library in collaboration with the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts, the National Archives of Australia, Australian Film Commission and the National Museum of Australia.  In 2005 the Government increased funding to the CHG program and this was used to increase the number of grants awarded (up by 38%), expand the national training workshop for awardees from two to three days and fund regional preservation training workshops. The program does award grants for digitisation of collections but does so only for those applicants who can establish that digitisation is the most suitable preservation solution for their collection. The CHG program has strict guidelines which restrict the number of grants for digitisation.
The Library hopes that it will have the opportunity to collaborate with other cultural agencies in the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio to put forward a New Policy Proposal to Government for funding for digitisation programs within the portfolio. A Digitisation Strategy, highlighting areas for collaboration between cultural agencies, has been developed by the portfolio. The Library continues to actively lobby politicians and others about the need for Government funding for the digitisation of collections held by cultural agencies, community organisations and others.

Recommendation 4.
The Committee recommends that the Australian Research Information Infrastructure Committee consider the question of the availability online of Australian postgraduate theses as a matter of priority
.
Funds were awarded by the Department of Education, Science and Training under the Backing Australia’s Ability 2 program to the Australian Digital Expansion and Redevelopment Program in 2003. Led by the University of New South Wales, the new central metadata repository currently contains 150,000 records with links to theses in digital form. The repository is in its Beta release form and continues to be refined. Further information about the Program’s progress can be found at: http://adt.caul.edu.au .

Recommendation 5.
If there is no alternative funding mechanisms for ongoing research into the identification and testing of adaptive technologies for the use of online equipment in public libraries by persons with disabilities, the Committee recommends the funding of another round of AccessAbility grants
.
The Government has not provided funding for a further round of AccessAbility grants.
However, the Library continues to work with the disability sector to find ways to improve library services to people with disabilities. In 2005 the Library undertook the following:

  • work with Standards Australia to encourage the adoption of a national standard for the digital talking book, with a view to making print material accessible and navigable for blind or otherwise print-disabled persons
  • participated in a national forum convened by the Department of Family and Community Services, to discuss the move towards production of digital talking books in Australia and associated changes in the funding model
  • included in the new Libraries Australia search service a feature that allows people to easily discover talking books and Braille material held in Australian libraries
  • participated in an international project, arising from the Microsoft Forum on Libraries for the Blind, to support global discovery of library materials for people with disabilities
  • worked with the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales on testing the Libraries Australia search interface with a range of people with vision related disabilities, to ensure that the interface meets the needs of this community

There may be other activities that representatives wish to report on at the meeting.

The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Recommendation 6.
The Committee recommends:

  • that the Cultural Minister’s Council appoint a standing libraries working group to provide regular reports on library and information matters which need to be addressed as a priority;
  • that the proposed Cultural Minister’s Council standing libraries working group develop, in consultation with other interested parties, a national information policy; and
  • that NOIE be required to consult with the appropriate national library representatives on all matters of substance affecting the library community and the online provision of services.

In February 2004 the Cultural Minister’s Council established the Collections Council of Australia. In view of this, The Government considers that the requirements of (a) and (b) will be met through the activities of the new Council. Ms Anne-Marie Schwirtlich, CEO of the State Library of Victoria and Chair of the Council of Australian State Libraries represents the library sector on the Collections Council and will be reporting on its activities under Item 13. For more information about the Collections Council of Australia see the website.

Recommendation 7.
The Committee recommends:

  • that the Australian Government negotiate with telecommunications carriers to establish an ‘e-rate’ or discount rate for broadband access to public libraries and that, if negotiations are not successful, consider imposing a requirement on carriers under the Universal Service Obligation arrangement; and
  • that further funds be allocated under an expanded National Broadband Strategy for expanding broadband access in libraries.

Recommendation 8.
Noting the requirement that the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 be reviewed after three years of operation, the Committee recommends that that review consider the Act’s extension to digital material
.

The Library has been in discussions with the Department of Communications, Information Technology (DCITA) and the Arts and the Attorney-General’s Department since 1998 about the extension of legal deposit to publications in digital form. Progress on this issue has been disappointing. The Library has recently been in discussions with DCITA who are preparing an issues paper for public discussion in 2006. Over the past eight years the Library has continued to develop relationships with Australian publishers to encourage them to give permission for their digital publications and websites to be archived in PANDORA: Australia’s Web Archive. A Memorandum of Understanding is being developed with CSIRO Publishing which could provide a model for use with other publishers. The Library has also negotiated permission from many Commonwealth Government departments, through the Intellectual Property Branch in DCITA, to routinely archive their online publications in PANDORA.

Recommendation 9.
The Committee recommends:

  • that the National Library of Australia identify a number of key databases for which national site licensing might be desirable; and
  • that additional Australian Government funding be extended to the National Library of Australia for this purpose.

The Library has hosted two national forums on site licensing (8 December 2004 and 12 October 2005). A report on progress to date is attached for discussion at Appendix 1. At the forum on 12 October representatives of peak library bodies and existing consortia agreed to proceed with developing a national license for a core set of databases.

Recommendation 10.
The Committee recommends:

  • that the National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE) continue to consult closely with the library community over the development of the register of Australian Government Publications;
  • that NOIE publicise the availability in public libraries of the online register; and
  • that NOIE commission research to ascertain the level of public awareness of government information and the means of access thereto.

The Library continues to work with closely with the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO, formerly NOIE) to improve access to government publications. Records for titles in the Australian National Bibliographic Database have been included in AGIMO’s Register of Government Publications. Discussions have also been held with AGIMO about the development of a framework for the publication and dissemination of online government publications.

In April 2005 ALIA hosted a seminar (Digital Amnesia) to raise awareness in Government of the issues surrounding access to online Government publications. Senator John Watson, Chair of the Joint (Parliamentary) Committee on Publications spoke at the seminar. The Committee is currently holding an Inquiry into the future publication of the Parliamentary Papers Series. ALIA, AGLIN and others may wish to comment on this.

Recommendation 11.
Where there is a shared responsibility for the public library funding between state and local government, the Committee recommends that the States significantly increase their share of public library funding, moving towards matching local government levels of contribution.

Public Libraries Australia may wish to comment on this recommendation.

***************************************************************

Agenda item 3(i)  
Proposal for an Australian National Licence for Electronic Resources

Background
The concept of a national licence to enable all Australians to access a set of quality electronic resources has seen considerable work over the past year.  The Senate Environment Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report on the Role of Libraries in the Online Environment identified the need for Australians to have access to online resources.  The Peak Bodies meeting in 2003 agreed:

The National Library, CAUL and CASL will undertake research into current licensing principles and practices, and into the feasibility of determining a basic set of national electronic resources.

In December 2004 the National Library convened a Forum of all library sectors to consider the issue and explore the concept of a consortium to negotiate and purchase national licences for certain key online information resources. 

A Reference Group, facilitated by the Australian Government Libraries Information Network, was established to develop a proposal for a core set of Australian electronic resources for a self-funded national site license, to be provided through the library sector to its users. The reference group was also tasked to define the audience for this core dataset.

The Group developed a discussion paper which was circulated to all Australian libraries and sought comment.  It considered the objectives and benefits of a national licensing initiative and the associated issues of governance, funding models, the type of resources that have been selected, administration, communication and ways of seeking input from Australian libraries.

October Forum
A Forum was then held by the National Library on 12 October 2005 with representatives from all Australian library sectors.  The following organisations were invited to the forum:

Australian Government Libraries Information Network

Australian Law Librarians' Group

Australian Library and Information Association

Australian School Library Association

Council of Australian State Libraries

Council of Australian University Librarians

CSIRO

Department of Education, Science and Training

Department of Health and Ageing

Government Libraries in NSW Network

Gulliver consortium

Health Libraries Australia

NSW.net/State Library of New South Wales

PLAIN (SA)

Public Libraries Australia (did not attend)

TAFE Libraries Australia

The Forum discussed the responses from libraries and issues raised.  One of the issues raised was the role of the proposed consortium in relation to existing consortia.  The meeting was clearly of the view that existing consortia will continue to have a role, because the national consortium would focus on a few key products, and specific sectors would always have needs which could not be met by a broad consortium except for products with more general appeal.

Concern about the ability of a consortium to deliver any products with general appeal, and for all views to be represented adequately on any management body for the consortium was raised.  Other significant issues arising included the role of libraries, the importance of the "no-disadvantage" principle, and product selection principles. 

A paper on a possible funding model was tabled, and more work will be done by the reference group.  It seemed apparent is that affordable pricing could be achieved for at least some products, for even the smallest libraries.  A number of vendors had been approached for some indicative figures, and a considerable amount of data about library numbers and budgets gathered.  There will be more work done to produce a model which presents a clearer picture, is more easily understood, and which can be made available more widely. 

The NLA will not pass on administrative costs to consortium members. A possible management model was also discussed. While the issue of governance had been raised in a number of the responses, there had not been any significant feedback about a preferred model. 

Governance was another issue of interest to respondents.  Of particular concern was representation of the interests of all groups.  Adequate representation needs to be balanced with the need to have a manageable committee.  It was agreed saying that the governance model would be as light as possible, and it would be up to sectors to organise themselves to ensure representation.  There will be further discussion of the governance issue as the proposal moves forward.

There was unanimous support around the table for continuing work on the initiative.  The existing Reference Group, with some changes, will continue the work.  The Reference Group consists of::

Julie Rae (chair), Gulliver
Roxanne Missingham, National Library of Australia
Kathy Stapleton, Australian Government Libraries Information Network
Jerelynn Brown, NSW.net/State Library of New South Wales
Teresa Brook, PLAIN
Lynn Fletcher, TAFE Libraries Australia
Lindsay Harris, Health Libraries Australia
Diane Costello, CAUL
Heather Gordon, CAUL
Lorene Furmage, Australian School Library Association
Richard Sayers, ALIA
Thomas Girke, CSIRO

The Reference Group met and formed sub-groups to work on the key issues identified in the discussion:

Products: (Kathy Stapleton, Lorene Furmage, Teresa Brook, Lynn Fletcher, Sandra Henderson, Thomas Girke);
Costing: (Julie Rae, Diane Costello, Roxanne Missingham, Richard Sayers);
Governance: (Lindsay Harris, Jerelynn Brown, Heather Gordon, Erica Ryan);
Communications: (will coopt additional people for this group).  Susan Magnay and Richard Sayers.

A survey or Australian libraries and representative groups will be undertaken in late November to assess the sectors preferred products for a national licence.  The Governance group has prepared a draft governance framework for consultation.  The Costing group continue to work on a pricing model and the Communications group will focus on communication to library staff and ultimately end users.

These groups to work toward completing their work by the end of March 2006 to enable reporting to all Australian library sector bodies.

Roxanne Missingham
17 November 2005

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 5.
Improving access to Australia's libraries.

Council of Australian State Libraries Information Access Plan: Report to the Peak Bodies Forum, 12 December 2005

In discussions during 2004 and 2005, the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL) has considered the need for a greater degree of integration of the Australian library web presence, in order to give the public a more accessible, cohesive and easy-to-navigate service.  The current web presence of libraries in Australia was seen as complicated and confusing for the general community.

The CASL Information Access Plan has grown from these discussions.  The objectives of the Plan are to break down the barriers to effective library services for the community, through improving access, simplifying interfaces, and integrating searching.

CASL convened an Information Access Forum in Adelaide in October 2004 to identify how this issue might be addressed.  As one tool to aid its thinking, the workshop considered some hypothetical information seekers and examined the pathways they would need to follow to meet their information need.  One of these, “Joan of Gilgandra”, was researching the Cooee Marches which were part of the public recruiting effort in the first World War.  Information on this topic might be found, for example, through Google; through reference services such as AskNow!; through the collections of Joan’s local public library, state library, state archives, National Archives and the National Library; or through searching the Australian National Bibliographic Database, APAIS and other indexes and databases provided through the web sites of the state and national libraries.

After considering such scenarios the Forum identified a number of barriers to effective information access, including the complexity and usability of online interfaces, the complexity of the “finding and getting” channels, and the lack of public knowledge and expectations of our services.

The Plan endorsed by CASL comprises the following ten projects that CASL libraries, or its committees, could undertake in 2005-06:

  • Share information on web site design
  • Collaborate on development and maintenance of Internet subject guides
  • Examine feasibility of streamlined access to indexes and databases
  • Promote federated searching across collecting institutions
  • Promote public access to Libraries Australia and discuss with CASL members the deployment of Libraries Australia
  • Improve guidance to users on item request and delivery channels in Libraries Australia
  • Promote the Information Access Plan to public libraries and other stakeholders
  • Identify issues and options in digitising Australian journal titles not currently available online
  • Improve sharing of information about digitisation projects
  • Investigate a shared application to manage reference enquiries.

Brief comments on some of these projects are given below.

Collaborate on development and maintenance of Internet subject guides
As its contribution to this project, the National Library carried out an environmental scan of State Library guides and internet links services, and provided a report to CASL.  The Library has also piloted “social bookmark open source software” to test the viability of a common infrastructure for managing internet links.

Examine feasibility of streamlined access to indexes and databases
The CASL Digital Issues Working Group carried out a survey of the practices of CASL members with respect to provision of access to indexes and databases, and provided a preliminary report to CASL.

Promote federated searching across collecting institutions
The National Library, on behalf of the federal Heads of Collecting Institutions (HOCI) is leading a project to test the feasibility of a “federated discovery service” for the national collecting institutions.  The project is examining the possible development of an open, lightweight search protocol standard, and is also examining the feasibility of providing distributed search across metadata aggregations, in addition to the catalogues of individual institutions.  Two significant existing metadata aggregations are the Collections Australia Network (CAN) and Libraries Australia.  An initial discussion paper canvasses candidate protocols which might support distributed search, including the existing CAN protocol and an extension of Amazon’s “Open Search” protocol.

Promote public access to Libraries Australia and discuss with CASL members the deployment of Libraries Australia
The National Library has decided to provide free access by the Australian public to the Libraries Australia Search service.  This service will be introduced on 27 February 2006.  The Library is also planning to seed metadata from the Australian National Bibliographic Database to Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo, along similar lines to OCLC’s Open WorldCat service.  This will help bring the content of Australian library collections to the attention of Internet users who otherwise might not have thought to search in library catalogues.
Several CASL members are promoting Libraries Australia Search to their onsite readers, and are planning to offer personalised accounts to these readers.  The new subscription model for customer libraries, introduced in July 2005, has broken the link between usage and fees.  As a result, customer libraries now have no disincentive to make Libraries Australia available to their end users.  A recent release of Libraries Australia Search has enhanced the “Get This Item” screens to support “deep linking” to the National Library and most State Library catalogues, taking the user directly to the appropriate record in the catalogue.  This feature removes another barrier to the promotion of the service to readers.
In June 2005 the National Library established an internal Working Group to review the future of the Library’s catalogue, in the light of Libraries Australia Search and other changes to the catalogue environment.  The Information Access Plan, with its call for CASL members to “investigate how to use Libraries Australia to improve services to their users” was a stimulus to the formation of this Group.  The Group has been considering the enablers and inhibitors to “replacing the Catalogue with the Australian National Bibliographic Database as the primary database to be searched by users”.

Promote the Information Access Plan to public libraries and other stakeholders
On 9 September the Chair of CASL wrote to stakeholders and decision-makers for the public library networks across Australia, commending the Information Access Plan.  The letter encouraged further debate within the public library community, and asked the recipients to distribute the Plan through their organisations and networks.

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 6
Libraries Australia

Background
The National Library has been redeveloping the Kinetica service since December 2003.  The reasons for developing a new system are:

  • to introduce improvements for customers in areas such as search functionality, online performance and record creating and sharing;
  • to give the Library an improved capacity to innovate, and thus introduce further future improvements;
  • to integrate the Kinetica Chinese Japanese and Korean (CJK) service into the core system, and to provide the ability to handle all non-roman scripts supported by the Unicode standard;
  • to develop new search interfaces to meet the needs of individuals; and
  • to obtain the best value for money solution, taking into account functionality, risks and costs

The service is being redeveloped in a modular manner to support cost effective ongoing development. The Kinetica services are being rebranded as Libraries Australia.
The modules of the new service are:  Libraries Australia Search (based on the TeraText toolkit); Libraries Australia Cataloguing (the cataloguing client utilises OCLC PICA’s CBS software); Libraries Australia Document Delivery (using FDI’s VDX software) and Libraries Australia Administration (developed in house).
Advice of the developments in the service, its business model and business developments have been provided through the Kinetica (now Libraries Australia) Advisory Committee.

The new Libraries Australia service will be delivered on 30 November and includes:

  • a new cataloguing service – Libraries Australia cataloguing client, web input and web holdings;
  • a new release of the search system – Libraries Australia search;
  • a Libraries Australia Record Import Service replacing Batch*link;
  • a Libraries Australia Record Export Service replacing Marc*link, TPSDLL and the Kinetica record downloading services;
  • a Libraries Australia Administration system which enables libraries to manage their accounts and
  • a new Products service which enables libraries to order sets of records conveniently.

This paper introduced three key issues for discussion – the new business model based on subscriptions, the opportunities now available for libraries to fully exploit the range of services provided by Libraries Australia particularly to end users and the free interface to be offered in early 2006.

Libraries Australia Business model
With advice from the Advisory Committee the National Library has changed the charging model of Libraries Australia (and Kinetica services) from 2005.  The change was based on a number of principles developed with the Advisory Committee in 2003:

  • Libraries Australia/Kinetica charges need to be predictable for customers.  Any changes to charges need to be notified in a manner to meet the budget planning needs of libraries with financial and calendar years.
  • charges must be sustainable for Australian libraries and the National Library.
  • for customers, charges need to represent value for money and encourage contribution to the Australian National Bibliographic Database (ANBD).
  • for the National Library, charges must be adequate to both sustain the level of service required by customers and to enable further service developments to ensure the service remains relevant.
  • Libraries Australia/Kinetica charging should encourage new and innovative uses of the service, particularly those which increase access by Australians (end users) to the ANBD.
  • the charging model needs to be simple and easily understood by customers and the National. This enables effective application of the charging system and a common understanding of the objectives of the pricing.
  • charges need to be at a level which are competitive with alternative services and enables Australian libraries to achieve the advantages available through participating in a service providing a resource sharing network for Australian libraries.
  • the charging model must promote and reinforce the objectives of the service.

The new model is based on an annual subscription rather than the number of transactions and covers:

  • searching of:
    • Australian National Bibliographic Database (including CJK)
    • Silas
    • Te Puna
    • Free search targets (e.g. LC, BL catalogue
  • Libraries Australia/Kinetica Document Delivery usage:
    • KDD requests  (previously $1.17 per request including GST)
    • KDD Payment Service transaction fee (previously $0.35 per item requested and supplied including GST).

For library sectors indicators are being established through consultation to use to provide a means of determining the subscription levels. 

The new arrangement enables libraries to offer end user access to Libraries Australia at no additional cost, and to obtain maximum benefit from use of the service.

Libraries Australia Services
The Libraries Australia services will be launched on 30th November and will offer a wide range of new and improved functionality to Australian libraries.  Some of the key features which will benefit the library community are:

  • providing access to end users at no additional charge, enabling your users to access the nations resources easily and conveniently with the ability to find material held across the nation’s libraries;
  • enabling users to request copies and loans through their libraries through the “enhanced requesting option” which enables a request to be sent to their library via email or Libraries Australia Document Delivery (KDD) service;
  • personalised access to Libraries Australia, a value added service which enables users to establish individual accounts to order alerts, save records, save searches and set up search and database defaults;
  • greatly improved cataloguing through input via regular files of records and holdings (Record Import Service), improved web input of bibliographic records and holdings and an improved cataloguing client.

In addition enhancement to the Libraries Australian Document Delivery Service enables reciprocal borrowers to more easily utilise the service through enabling the defaults to be set at $0 for reciprocal community members.

Information on these features can be found on the Libraries Australia website.  We encourage libraries to implement end user access, enhanced requesting and personalisation .

Free Libraries Australia search service
At the recent Kinetica Annual Users’ Meeting in Perth, Jan Fullerton, Director General of the National Library, announced that the Library will launch access to Libraries Australia for all Australians from March next year.

This service will be freely available over the web and enable all Australians to benefit from access to information in order to further their education, advance their research, personal interests or business and enable life long learning. They will be able to access records of resources held by Australian libraries. Contact details of libraries holding the resources will also be accessible through a link to Australian Libraries Gateway in order to enable users to investigate ways to borrow or obtain copies of resources. 

The free search service will enable access to short and medium bibliographic records, but not MARC records.  Users will be able to search but will not have access to value added features such as record downloading, saved queries, saved records, alerts or personalisation.  Access to these features along with federated searching of a range of databases will only be available through the subscription service, as will Z39:50 searching. The full Libraries Australia service provides access to the complete database of over 14 million records for both Australian and international resources to assist libraries work more efficiently and cooperatively in cataloguing, interlending, collection development and reference. 

Access to Libraries Australia for all Australians from home, work and school, in both regional and metropolitan areas, is only made possible through the subscriptions paid by Australian libraries to the full service.  The revenue raised through annual subscriptions also funds the support, maintenance and ongoing development of the service.

Consultation with Australian libraries over the implications of the free service will occur through presentations at State User Group meetings, a resource sharing forum to be held at the National Library and through the Kinetica Advisory Committee.

Roxanne Missingham
17 November 2005

***************************************************************

Agenda item 7.
Resource Sharing

(i)         Proposed Australian Resource Sharing Forum

Background
The National Library has facilitated discussions on resource sharing for many years.  The National Resource Sharing Working Group and Policy Committee were established from 1999 to 2004 to ensure that a robust, reliable and cost-effective interlending system, built on cooperation and agreed service standards and policies, was in place to serve Australian libraries and their users.  These groups oversaw the development of a number of major projects on interlending including the benchmarking study, ILRS Code, conferences and guides.
A final forum for these groups was held in August 2004 and identified a number of issues for action by ALIA, CAUL, CASL and the NLA.  The next steps were proposed to be activities in each sector to be followed by a national forum to review progress an identify priorities and future directions.  There are a number of significant issues for discussion arising from actions identified at the last forum, such as the review of the ILRS Code, and new developments, such as the free Libraries Australia search interface.
Development of a program and basis for consultation for the forum commenced in 2005.  Because of the number of activities being undertaken at the National Library at present it has been proposed that the event would be held in early 2006.

Issues
A range of topics have been identified as important for consultation.  The most significant are the review of the ILRS Code, which ALIA has been conducting in 2005.  The Forum will provide an opportunity for ratification of the code and discussion of potential research into costs, performance and improvements since the benchmarking study.  Other important issues include implications of the Libraries Australia free search service and a review of copyright issues.
The proposed draft agenda is:

  1. Review recommendations from last meeting      
  2. ILRS code review
  3. Trends   
  4. Free Libraries Australia Search Service   
  5. Report from IFLA ILDS conference    
  6. Public Libraries report   
  7. Copyright  
  8. Report on proposal for an Australian National Licence 
  9. “Rethinking Resource Sharing” – report on progress of US Group
  10. Updates from ALIA, NLA, CASL and CAUL
  11. Recommendations/actions

Forum participants
In order to engage the Australia library community we proposed that the invitation list include representatives from:

CASL
CAUL
TAFE
ALIA
CSIRO
Law (ALLG)
Health Libraries Australia
Public libraries (Public Libraries Australia and Vicnet)
Schools (ASLA)
Government libraries (AGLIN)
Parliamentary libraries

Forum timing
In order to enable issues to be addressed with preparation of reports and to meet the need to ratify the ILRS code it is proposed that the meeting be held in the first quarter of 2006.
Advice is sought from Peak Bodies attendees on possible discussion topics, participants and timing of this event. 

Roxanne Missingham
17 November 2005

Attachment 1. 
Issues identified at the National Resource Sharing Working Group Final Forum, August, 2004

Issue

Scope/actions

Responsibility

Dates/ Deliverables/Discussion

Collection Issues

Discarding material and closed library collections

Processes for ensuring material, particularly “last copies” are retained in Australian libraries

NLA/ALIA

Ensure information is made available on joining discard lists; encourage distribution of information through these lists – possibly also via ALG or other Website

ARCLAP study and models

Response to Study

NLA

NLA will draft response from the interlending perspective to distribute to members for comment
concern expressed about maintaining Australian/Overseas collections
borrowing from libraries in this area is difficult

Information on Australian Library collection building vs international publications

Obtain information produced for the Monograph round table and consider requirements

NLA

Locate and distribute information on study

Standards / guidelines

Electronic collection/datasets licences

Commitment to including to seek and provide ILL from e-sets

Information on expression of ILL availability to use in contracts

CAUL

CASL

ALIA – Procurement advisory group

Sector based approach with each sector promoting importance of ILL from e-resources

ILRS Code

Simplify service levels

Improve speed of service

Issue of minimum loan periods for loans

ALIA –interlending group

Revise code – many libraries report code too complex for end users

Billing

Set standard for bills

Set standard for bills for lost books

ALIA guidelines

Ausloan manual

Scanned Copies

National Standard for quality

Encourage increase delivery online

ALIA guidelines

Ausloan manual

Feedback to libraries

International monograph lending

National Standard

IFLA standard

This should be covered by the IFLA standards on International ILL

Also a local library decision.

Copyright

Need for clearer simpler information online

Free Trade Agreement impact

ALIA –in plain English

Promote ALIA – FAQ pages and training

Ausloan manual

Ensure relevant information is provided when any change occurs to Australian legislation.

National union catalogue / system infrastructure

NBD coverage

Improve coverage of libraries

Ensure holdings statements are up to date and accurate

Encourage coverage of items in e-collections

Encourage ILL availability information in records

NLA

CAUL

CASL

Promotion of services

To raise issues with members

KDD

Frequency of bills (ability for more frequent bills (monthly)

Address some of the usability issues

NLA

KDD consider impact of monthly billing

Continue to develop the service

Information on resource discovery services

Better information on union catalogues and resource discovery services

ALIA

Ausloan manual

Payment system

Future developments – vouchers to possible electronic service

Do we need to charge?

ALIA

Issues to be investigated

Tools and training

Manuals online

Ausloan new Edition

ALIA

Ausloan – seen as an online ILL portal linking to resources rather than a manual

National performance indicators /performance measurement tools

Develop national performance indicators

Develop sector based indicators (CAUL) as pilot

CAUL/ ALIA

Develop a flexible benchmarking tools based on existing documentation to suit the different library types

Skills training

Library technician TAFE course – ensure relevant coverage

CDP – ongoing training

ALIA

Need to define training requirements

Models

Integrating and improving “get”

Sharing information on projects such as Copies Direct

NLA

ALIA

List projects on ALG and REAP

Information on consortia models/projects (borrow direct)

Means of sharing information on results of projects in this area

ALIA

Share information – write and present at conferences

REAP possible information

Communications / marketing

Informing communicate of results of NRSWG and NRSPC and issues raised at this forum

Members to discuss impact

NLA

Link from ALG

Articles in library news and Gateways

Share information on impact of virtual reference projects

ALIA

Encourage listings in REAP

Share information on impact of digital and print repositories

ALIA

Encourage listings in REAP

Share information on library structures for ILL and organisational issues

Christine Cother to undertake study

Research

Research into factors driving demand for ILL (end users)

NLA, ALIA and CAUL

Consider options for project

Automation

Tracking ILL automation developments

ALIA - Conference

Could include information in the Ausloan manual/point from website.

GST

ALIA

Ongoing communication on impacts and future lobbying

CAL agreements

Sectors

To be addressed through each sector?

Resource Sharing Round Table (annual)

To bring together the different sectors to discuss resource sharing

NLA- organise

Review progress on actions

Identify new issues for discussion

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 7.
Resource Sharing

(ii)        Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing Code

The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) presents a revised draft Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code for comment. The draft revised ILRS Code is based on extensive feedback from the Australian library community on a discussion paper issued by the ILLEAG in July 2005. The text of the revised draft code is below, followed by a report which provides explanation and discussion of the changes that are proposed to the code.
Following this period for comment, the final revised ILRS Code, incorporating any amendments as a result of comments from the sector, will be presented to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the National Library of Australia for their endorsement.

Draft revised Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code, November 2005

Amendments and additions are shown in bold italics.

Introduction
The ILRS Code benefits Australian libraries and their users by providing greater predictability, consistency, and flexibility in obtaining materials.
The Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code is designed to support a multi-faceted approach to resource sharing based on co-operation and fairness between libraries and respect for the moral and intellectual rights of creators and publishers.
In supporting the ILRS Code, Australian libraries recognise that resource sharing is important in meeting the needs of library users but that it should not be a substitute for the purchase of library materials to meet the primary needs of its users. The purpose of resource sharing is to obtain those materials that a library cannot purchase because they fall outside the scope of the library's collection development policy.

Scope
Although the ILRS Code is voluntary all libraries participating in resource sharing are encouraged to operate under the principles and implement the service level standards specified ensuring an efficient and effective system. The core service is mandatory. Libraries are encouraged to offer all three service levels. Core and Rush levels must be provided before offering the higher Express service level. Maximum prices are recommended for each service level. The charge drops to the service level delivered when a supplying library fails to meet the turnaround time.

Principles
Libraries participating under this ILRS Code agree to observe the following principles:

  • Comply with the service-level standards. Where libraries are unable to offer a given service level, this should be stated in their ILRS directory entry.
  • Supply an item quickly within the service level requested. Libraries are encouraged to improve services and review processes so services are not offered at the slowest turnaround time within each service level standard.
  • Publish their resource sharing policy in the ILRS directory and keep the entry updated. The policy should include all charges.
  • Make holdings available and keep them up-to-date, including holdings of electronic resources, with an indication of availability for resource sharing. Use of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) should be reciprocal. Libraries using the NBD to identify holdings for their own requests should be committed to making their holdings available and up-to-date.
  • Consider all requests for material regardless of format, though the decision to lend materials is at the discretion of the supplying library.
  • Ensure confidentiality for the requestor and the requestor's client.
  • Pay outward delivery costs when supplying unless otherwise agreed.
  • Pay return delivery costs when borrowing, unless otherwise agreed.
  • Comply with the policies of potential suppliers, as published in their ILRS Directory entry.
  • Where systems allow users to initiate requests and send them direct to supplying libraries, authenticate and authorise users, assume full responsibility for these requests and ensure that such requests comply with the principles of the ILRS Code.
  • Accept responsibility for paying all authorised charges imposed by the supplying library.
  • Accept responsibility for the safety of borrowed material, and pay for loss or damage whilst the material is away from the supplying library.
  • Observe any special provisions on the use of material and enforce all use restrictions specified by the supplying library.
  • Honour the due date for the return of loans.
  • Where possible, have a loan period of three weeks or more. Remote libraries may require longer loan periods.
  • When requesting, provide complete bibliographic details and call numbers of the supplying library where possible.
  • Supply the best copy possible, in accordance with efficient work processes. Notify the requesting library if a quality copy is not available.
  • Use the most efficient payment methods possible, such as the national automated payments gateway through Libraries Australia Document Delivery or payment with request using ALIA vouchers, credit card or cheque.

Definitions
Supplier turnaround time
The time between when a supplying library receives a request to when the supplying library dispatches the item or indicates it cannot supply the item.

Working day
Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

Close of business
5:00pm local time, or the end of the working day for the supplying library - whichever is earlier.

Recommended prices
All recommended prices are GST-inclusive.

Default delivery modes
To be used when the requesting library has not specified a delivery method.

Best copy possible
The copy is the highest possible quality for readability by the user, obtainable within efficient work processes.

Service-level standards

Service type

Maximum supplier turnaround time

Recommended prices

Express

Two hours: the item or a negative response is sent within two hours of receiving the request
(Requesting libraries are encouraged to telephone or fax confirmation of electronic Express requests)

$13.20 plus $26.40 levy, plus delivery charges if applicable
Copy: Fax, ariel or e-mail attachment
Loan: Negotiated

Rush

24 hours: the item or a negative response is sent within 24 hours of receiving the request

$13.20 plus $13.20 levy, plus delivery charges if applicable
Copy: Fax, ariel or e-mail attachment
Loan: Express post or equivalent

Core

Four working days: Working days are measured in whole days.
Request received on Monday, item or a negative response sent by close of business Thursday or,
if the item is to be sent by mail, dispatched in time for last collection on Thursday

$13.20, plus delivery charges if applicable
Any method not attracting an additional charge

The supplier response time to an ILL request sent from an automated system before automatic expiry occurs is Core turnaround time plus one day.

Recommended delivery prices
Recommended prices for copies are for up to 50 pages in the original item in black and white reproduction. An additional charge of $3.30 applies for each additional 50 pages copied. An additional charge of $2.20 applies for each colour page copied. Prices for special copying, for example, fragile material or music scores, or for loans of multi-volume sets may need to be negotiated.

Fax

no charge

Ariel or e-mail attachment

no charge

Mail

no charge

Express post or equivalent for copies

$6.60

Express post or equivalent for loans up to 3kg

$9.90

Express post or equivalent for loans over 3kg

negotiated

 

Review of the Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code, 2005
Report and discussion

Introduction
The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) presents a revised draft Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code for comment. The draft revised ILRS Code is based on extensive feedback from the Australian library community on a discussion paper issued by the ILLEAG in July 2005.
The final revised ILRS Code, incorporating any amendments as a result of comments from the sector, will be presented to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the National Library of Australia for their endorsement.
Forty-nine submissions were received from individuals with an interest in interlibrary lending and resource sharing, from university, state/territory, public, government and special libraries, from peak bodies and other sector organisations and from resource sharing and Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) interest groups. The ILLEAG thanks all the individuals and organisations for the wealth of comment, information and ideas covered in their submissions. The expert group is confident that the range of views expressed is representative of the sector as a whole and that they form a sound basis for the recommended changes to the ILRS Code outlined in this paper. A detailed summary of the submissions is available on request from Susan Magnay.
The strong and positive response to the discussion paper supports the underlying assumption of this review of the ILRS code that the majority of libraries across all sectors are committed to resource sharing and co-operation and that the benefits of Australia's interlending and resource sharing system to Australian libraries and their users outweigh the costs.

Principles
Summary of changes

  • For ease of reference, the principles have been numbered.
  • Four new principles (numbers 15 - 18) are added.
  • Two principles (numbers 2 and 10) are amended.

Discussion
There was strong support for the existing principles. Very few amendments to the existing principles were suggested.
Principle 2 is amended to distinguish more clearly between the principle of complying with the agreed service level standards of the code (as in principle 1) and providing the most efficient service possible within the service levels of the code (as in principle 2). As originally worded, principles 1 and 2 could be interpreted as contradictory.
Principle 10, which deals with requesting libraries' responsibilities for user-initiated requests is amended to clarify that responsibility for such requests includes that they comply with the principles of the ILRS Code. There was a divided response on the questions of whether and how end-user requests should be covered in the code. Some respondents stated that end-user requests are already covered in Principle 10; are already inherent in the principles; or that the suggested additional principle for complete bibliographic details would suffice. Other respondents stated that end-user requests are an internal matter for the requesting library.
Three new principles, numbers 15, 16 and 17, which were proposed in the discussion paper on the review of the code, are added. These are concerned with a minimum loan period, inclusion of bibliographic details in requests and the quality of copies supplied. All three new principles were supported strongly in the responses to the discussion paper.
Arising from the responses to the questions about pricing and payment methods, Principle 18, that libraries should use the most efficient payment methods possible, is added. Two thirds of respondents who commented on the question of whether the ILRS Code should specify preferred payment methods agreed that it should.

Recommendation
In the interests of efficiency for both requesting and supplying libraries and the resource sharing system as a whole, the ILLEAG recommends that all libraries consider using the Libraries Australia document delivery payments gateway as the preferred payment method.

Definitions
Summary of changes

  • The definition of 'supplier turnaround time' is amended.
  • A definition of 'best copy possible' is added.

Discussion
The definition of 'supplier turnaround time' has been simplified with the intention of stating more clearly that it is concerned with the period of time that a request is dealt with by a supplying library. The ILLEAG has decided that since the ILRS code is concerned with principles the definition should not refer explicitly to electronic requests.
The additional definition of 'best copy possible' is intended to emphasise supplying to meet the end-user's need for a legible and readable copy, dependent of course on the format and quality of the original item, the need for efficient work processes and the technology available to both the requesting and supplying library. The definition supports the new Principle 17. There were suggestions from several respondents that further details about quality of copies should be covered in guidelines for best practice.

Service level standards
Summary of changes

  • The number of service levels is reduced from five to three:
    • Express: maximum supplier turnaround time of two hours.
    • Rush: maximum supplier turnaround time of 24 hours.
    • Core: maximum supplier turnaround time of four working days.
  • The Core service level is changed to a supplier turnaround time of four working days.
  • The Default service level is removed.
  • A statement is added that requesting libraries are encouraged to confirm by telephone or fax with the supplying library when placing an electronic request for an Express service.
  • A statement is added to establish a national guideline for the automatic expiry of requests sent from an automated system.

Discussion
An overwhelming number of respondents supported the proposal to reduce the number of service levels from five to three. Respondents commented that five service levels were '...confusing and unnecessary...' and that it was '...hard to keep track of what each level means'. The proposed three service levels were seen as much simpler, easier to manage, and with sufficient flexibility to meet most requirements.
Responses to the discussion paper were roughly evenly divided between reducing the supplier turnaround time to four days and maintaining the current five-day supplier turnaround time for the Core service level. Since a primary purpose of the ILRS Code is to support and encourage service improvement, the ILLEAG proposes that supplier turnaround time for the Core service should be four working days. This is also in line with international trends in ILL.
In general, the Rush and Express services as defined in the discussion paper were supported.
A monetary incentive to encourage libraries to meet the Core service level, that is the current Default service level, was not supported by the majority. Respondents reported that the Default service level is difficult to administer and is not widely followed in practice.
The majority of respondents supported an alert by telephone or fax when placing electronic requests for Express service.
The proposed guideline for the automatic expiry of requests sent from an automated ILL system is intended to minimise the confusion and inconvenience for libraries of working with varying response timeframes set up in different automated systems. It is also applicable to requests sent via other means, particularly e-mail, and will allow libraries to predict confidently that if a library has not responded within the timeframe they can safely forward the request to another potential supplier. This addition has come from a recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group on KDD that the response period for KDD users be reduced from ten to five working days. To ensure that the principle applies to the broader library community, not only KDD users, the standard proposed is the Core supplier turnaround time plus one day. This ensures that systems do not forward the requests to the next library in a shorter time than the code specifies and should give a supplying library adequate time to respond.

Recommended delivery prices
Summary of changes

  • E-mail attachment is added to the default delivery modes for Express and Rush requests.
  • A recommended charge for colour copies is added.
  • Copying of music scores and loans of multi-volume sets are added to the categories of materials for which prices may need to be negotiated.

Discussion
There was general consensus in the responses to the discussion paper that the ILRS Code should remain 'non specific' so that it can be applied to a wide variety of libraries and to changing technologies and that therefore the code did not require more details about delivery modes and formats.
On the question of how electronic file formats should be covered in the ILRS Code replies indicate a want of direction but acknowledged the emerging technologies. Responses were equally divided against and in favour of specifying file formats. Very few comments were made regarding the size of files. On balance, the ILLEAG has concluded that file formats should not be specified in any more detail in the code.
Responses on whether a statement about the responsibility of requesting libraries for the delivery of requested electronic documents to their end users should be included in the code were almost equally divided for and against. Some respondents suggested that this was a copyright issue and others that it was a workplace procedural issue and that these should be covered in guidelines for best practice.
A majority of respondents to the discussion paper favoured an additional recommended fee for colour copies. The preferred fee structure was a per page recommended charge.

Pricing
Summary of changes

  • No changes to the recommended fee for the Core service and levies for Express and Rush services are proposed at this stage.
  • A new recommended charge for colour copies, as outlined above, is introduced.

Discussion
In the discussion paper, the ILLEAG suggested that a crucial challenge in establishing recommended ILL fees was to have agreement across a diverse sector on the guiding principles and data on which to set recommended prices for the sector as a whole.
The responses to the section on pricing and pricing models in the discussion paper have provided a diversity of views and opinions but very little costing data.
In general respondents supported the principle of recommended pricing to provide partial compensation and cost recovery for lenders, for the benefit of the sector as a whole. However, there was no consensus in the submissions on what the level of pricing should be or on what the impact of changes in recommended pricing, whether up or down, would be.
There were comments that recommended pricing also contributes to controlling demand and to placing a value on the service. Several respondents noted that Australia's resource sharing system also includes extensive reciprocal arrangements. It was suggested that a pricing structure for resource sharing should aim to keep prices low and affordable, should encourage efficiency and cost-effectiveness and should aim to maximise the use of collections of Australian libraries by ensuring that collections are accessible.

Costing information
Summarising the 49 submissions, eleven respondents stated that they had no costing information; five referred to the 2000 ILL/DD benchmarking study as a source of costing data and several suggested pricing based on internal costing exercises based on average staff time to process a request ranging from 14.5 minutes to 30 minutes.
There were suggestions that it would be useful to have a simple formula for estimating average costs.
It was also notable that most of the comments on the impact of pricing changes, focused on how a change in recommended pricing, whether up or down, might affect requesting, rather than supplying.
The ILLEAG has concluded, on the basis of the responses, not to propose at any changes to the recommended prices in the code at this stage. The responses to the discussion paper have not provided sufficient data, nor a clear sense of the direction that would be broadly acceptable to the sector. There have been extensive changes in the infrastructure, work processes and business environment for interlending since the benchmarking study in 2000. The ILLEAG believes that there is a need to establish a new baseline for costs and recommended prices, taking into account the changes over the past five years, and an agreed process for regular ongoing review.

Recommendation
The ILLEAG recommends that the ALIA Board of Directors seek the support of CASL, CAUL and the national library for a collaborative project to gather data on ILL supply costs across sectors and to develop a simple costing tool for ILL/DD supply that could be used by all sectors. It is proposed to seek the agreement of the sector's peak bodies that costing information from such a study would be used to inform the setting of a pricing structure and recommended prices.
The question of whether the ILRS Code should specify preferred payment methods is covered in the section on principles.

Other comments
Some respondents provided information about their library services or networks and the relevance of the ILRS Code to their operations.

Other comments covered:

  • the importance of libraries honouring the due date for return of loan items
  • advantages of the ALIA ILL voucher system
  • the importance of the ILRS code as a national code of practice covering all libraries, large and small, from all sectors.

Service level codes
The National Library of Australia (NLA) has proposed a change to the service level definitions in the automated environment. The current service level codes in the KDD system are specific to Australia and reflect the service levels of the ILRS Code.
However, the interlibrary loans/document delivery environment has changed significantly. With the uptake of local ISO ILL systems, and the ability to exchange messages via the ISO ILL Protocol with other libraries and document suppliers outside of Australia, the use of the Australian service level codes has become problematic. Vendors of ISO ILL compliant systems are reluctant to set up additional codes outside of the standard codes support in ISO ILL Protocol, for a very small subset of their customer base. Overseas libraries and document suppliers routinely (and correctly) use the IPIG (ILL Protocol Implementation Group) codes.
The NLA wishes to adopt the IPIG codes instead of the Australia service codes for KDD, to alleviate these current problems, and to avoid the issue becoming much greater in the future. This means that in the KDD system, the IPIG codes (, } and > would be used instead of C, R, and E for the Core, Rush and Express service levels. The service level descriptions for Core, Rush and Express would remain the same, as would the expectation that Australian libraries would continue to be guided by the conditions and charges recommended by the ILRS Code.
The ILLEAG supports the NLA recommendation that the symbols C, R, and E used to describe the Australia ILRS code service levels of Core, Rush and Express be changed to the IPIG symbols (, } and >.

ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group, November 2005

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 8
The future of the catalogue: some points for discussion

  • Current trends in the online dissemination and discovery of information raises questions about the role of and indeed the need for online public access catalogues.  For instance, an increasing amount and range of information is accessible online via search engines and libraries are exposing their collections to search engines by means of guides, catalogues and online exhibitions, which increases the effectiveness of the search engines as discovery tools.
  • Another relevant trend is the linking of library holdings information with search results delivered by Internet search engines – examples of resource discovery services doing this are Google Scholar, OCLC’s Open WorldCat, and from early next year Libraries Australia. Combining local holdings with the vast range of resources available through portal services which are searchable by search engines, expands the resource discovery experience for the user beyond the confines of the local catalogue but still enables them to know what their library holds. 
  • As it is the case that more people are starting their search for information by using Internet search engines, a fundamental issue for libraries is their role in the resource discovery and delivery process for both digital and traditional resources. What is the nature of resource discovery services that libraries should offer?  What are the barriers and issues associated with providing seamless discovery and delivery? A basic assumption is that regardless of which resource discovery method used, users will expect the same level of service as if they had found what they want through a library catalogue - i.e. to be able to get hold of the item. 
  • In June 2005 the National Library established the Catalogue Access Review Group, chaired by Warwick Cathro, Assistant Director General Innovation, to review the Library’s strategy for providing an online catalogue in light of changes to the catalogue environment and in order to better meet user needs.  An important catalyst for the review was the development of the Libraries Australia Search service, with its easy-to-use interface and its linkages between the finding and getting functions.  Another motivation was the CASL Information Access Plan which (among other things) calls on all CASL members to “investigate how to use Libraries Australia to improve services to their users.”
  • The Access Review Group has met on several occasions and defined a set of assumptions about users’ resource discover needs, and identified the enablers and inhibiters to replacing the Library’s online catalogue with the Australian National Bibliographic Database (AND) as the primary database to be used by users. 
  • Examples of enablers include:
    • Use of the ANBD would improve the “finding and getting” process for users
    • Improved basic and advanced functionality such as ease of search, display of results, personalisation and alerts, is available through Libraries Australia Search
    • Integration with other discovery services such as manuscript finding aids and online newspapers (once this service exists) is possible via the ANBD
    • Using Libraries Australia Search would enable us to provide our users with access to commercial targets such as APAIS.
  • Inhibitors related to:
    • the inability to view detailed holdings information that resides in the catalogue and to reserve material in the Library’s collection through the Libraries Australia Search interface
    • the possible confusion users might experience in not knowing what collections they are searching via the Libraries Australia Search interface and due to the possible larger number of hits and the multiple or duplicate records retrieved
    • the inclusion of some types of data in local catalogue records but not in the ANBD records; eg institution specific and parent/child linking data.

The Group considers the enablers present a strong case for change and proposes to recommend that the inhibitors be addressed in a staged project spanning a couple of years.

Pam Gatenby (with reference to papers on the topic prepared by Judith Pearce and Warwick Cathro)
21 November 2005

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 10.
Copyright Issues Update

Australia - US Free Trade Agreement

Fair Dealing/Fair Use Review of Copyright Exceptions

Types of amendments requested by user groups:

  • Extension of preservation copying provisions
  • Orphaned works exception
  • Exceptions to cover format & time shifting
  • Back up copying exceptions
  • Non-remunerable caching exceptions to cover active & passive caching
  • Transformative uses exception
  • Sample copies exception
  • Open-ended fair use style exception

Review of the Scope of the Safe Harbour Scheme: Should it Apply to Online Service Providers?

  • Take-down notice procedure to deal with material which is alleged to be in breach of copyright.
  • Enables rights-holders to notify CSP’s of breaching material on their networks.
  • CSP then has a right of response; they can either take the material down or write to the rights holder saying that they believe it is not in breach.
  • If CSP follows the procedure set out in the legislation, then they are free from civil liability (i.e. $$$)
  • ADA/ALCC have submitted that libraries should be able to opt-in. This will allow libraries to implement the scheme if/when they determine their activities require it.

Review of Technological Protection Measures Exceptions

What is a 'TPM':

  • "Any device..designed..to prevent or inhibit the infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter…"
  • After AUSFTA: "any technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, or other protected subject matter, or protects any copyright".
  • Examples of 'TPMs': Regional coding, password protection, access codes

Current exceptions where circumvention allowed include:

  • s.49: Reproducing & communicating works by libraries & archives for users
  • s.50: Reproducing & communicating works by libraries & archives for other libraries & archives
  • s.51A: Reproducing & communicating works for preservation & other purposes  (including administrative purposes 51A(2))*
  • s.183: Use of copyright material for services of the crown
  • Fair dealing is not a current exception.

As a result of AUSFTA, after Jan 2007:

The current review will determine what the exceptions will look like.

ADA/ALCC have argued for exceptions substantially similar to the current ones we have for libraries.

Sony Case:
Failing to take into account user rights may be 'unconstitutional'.

* Non- AUSFTA Related Reviews

Digital Agenda Review (Review of the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000

Recommendations by Philips Fox included:

  • That the definition of library be consistent throughout the Act
  • That a study be done to determine whether for profit libraries should be included in the inter-library loan scheme in s.50
  • Copies of works should be able to be made available on dumb terminals
  • Low resolution copies should not infringe copyright
  • Active caching should be remunerable
  • Users should be able to circumvent TPMs for fair dealing purposes

Crown Copyright Report Released

Recommendations include:

  • Various special privileges of the Crown in s.176-179 should be abolished
  • ‘Normal’ © rules would still apply to materials produced by the Crown
  • That section 35(6) relating to ownership of copyright in works produced by employees, should be amended so as to also apply to an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his/her duties
  • That copyright in certain judicial, legislative and executive materials (including legislation, judicial decisions, official records of parliamentary debates, reports of commissions of inquiry etc should be abolished and that the Commonwealth, States and Territories be under a statutory duty to disseminate legislation and judgements;
  • That a non-exhaustive list of Government entities be created to remove uncertainty in relation to the status of certain bodies and whether they are or are not covered by provisions relating to the Crown;
  • That the issue of consistent copyright management be referred to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for consideration;
  • That each Government give a central agency responsibility for managing Crown copyright;
  • That the role of the Commonwealth Copyright Administration be expanded to providing advice and guidance, and that its responsibility be broadened to managing copyright in film and sound recordings;
  • That the Commonwealth develop and implement comprehensive intellectual property management guidelines to promote best practice and assist agencies to meet their responsibilities.

Sarah Waladan, Copyright Advisor

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 11.    
Inquiry into the Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series

Background
A committee was set up in September 2005 with the following Terms of Reference:

To inquire and report on the distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series (PPS), with particular reference to:

  • The potential impact of changes to the distribution of the PPS made by the Presiding Officers, namely the tightening of eligibility guidelines and the cessation of blister packs to commence on 1 January 2006;
  • The provision of the PPS in a digital format, either as an alternative or an adjunct to the hard copy series;
  • The feasibility of a subscription service, either in digital or hard copy form; and
  • The possibility of partial or full cost recovery for the series.

20 submissions have been made available on the enquiry website

Transcripts of the public hearings held in Canberra are also available from the website.

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 16.
Council of Australian State Libraries - Achievements in 2005

CASL is the peak body representing the National, State and Territory Libraries throughout Australia and New Zealand. These libraries collect the documentary heritage for their state or territory, provide reference and research services, and support the provision of public library services. The National Library of New Zealand joined CASL as a full member in January 2005.
The 10 members of CASL are the CEOs, Directors, National or State Librarians of these organisations.
The current Chair is Ms Anne-Marie Schwirtlich, CEO & State Librarian at the State Library of Victoria. CASL meets three times per year and communicates regularly through the CASL Secretariat based in Melbourne.  The last meeting was held in Wellington in November 2005, in conjunction with the New Zealand Digital Forum.
There are 9 CASL Working Groups, with representation from all CASL Libraries, focusing on priorities such as public programming, reference and digital issues, stack management, indigenous library services and performance measures.

Highlights from CASL and its Working Groups in 2005:

  • Treasures of Australia’s Great Libraries exhibition was launched at the NLA on 2 December 2005 and will travel to all CASL libraries in Australia through 2006-07. This is the most ambitious collaborative exhibition ever undertaken in Australia, attracting significant sponsorship.
  • CASL submissions to: Parliamentary Inquiry into Teacher Education; Department of Communciations, Information Technology and the Arts, Consultation on the Role of ICT in Building Communities; Adult Learning Australia Consultation on Towards a Learning Revolution; Copyright Fair Dealing and Fair Use Review; ALIA ILRS Review; Inquiry into Distribution of Parliamentary Papers Series.
  • National Policy Framework for Indigenous Library Services and Collections was endorsed by CASL in July 2005. CASL Indigenous Services and Collections Working Group was established in September 2005 to promote the policy.
  • AskNow online virtual reference service received 100,000th inquiry in August 2005. An approach has been made to the Department of Education Science and Traning to fund a parallel student service.
  • Chair of CASL is an ex-officio Director on the Board of Collections Council of Australia.
  • CASL Information Access Plan was distributed to public libraries and library associations in September 2005. Ten CASL projects have been endorsed to support the Information Access Plan.
  • MyLanguage web portal launched gradually across Australia since mid-2005. A group of CASL Libraries have collaborated to develop this service that gives access to over 6 million links in over 60 community languages. It comprises search engines, web directories, online dictionaries, and news headlines. Available at My Language.
  • Selected indicators for CASL Libraries in 2004-05:

Onsite visitors                                       4.5 million
Online visitors                                       112.5 million
Websites archived                                7,322
Collections - expenditure                      $20.7 million
Collections – asset value                       $4 billion
Site/buildings – asset value                    $909.3 million


Anne-Marie Schwirtlich                                                   
Chair, Council of Australian State Libraries
casl@slv.vic.gov.au

***************************************************************

Agenda Item 17.
Update from CAUL

The Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) has met twice in 2005.  At its first meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, a joint meeting with the Council of New Zealand University Librarians (CONZUL), it was agreed to develop guidelines in support of the increasing number of international professional study tours, both inbound and outbound, to simplify planning and encourage members to participate.  The international engagement was furthered at the second meeting in Brisbane, when CAUL members were joined by 18 representatives of the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries (SCONUL).  This followed a two week tour of the east coast by SCONUL members, and concluded with a stimulating set of presentations to CAUL by SCONUL members, covering such issues as research quality, teaching & learning and Oxford University’s Google digitisation project.

A feature of CAUL meetings in recent years has been its mini-seminars, or “hot topics”, where emerging issues of importance to the libraries’ role within our universities are exposed, explored and discussed, led by our internal experts or occasionally by invited guests. Agenda items at recent meetings have included:

  • eResearch - Cathrine Harboe-Ree (Monash University) represents CAUL on the government’s eResearch Coordinating Committee, established to develop a framework for creation, management, and curation of electronic research data.  The focus of this committee leans towards information management rather than high performance computing, and the role of the library in local institutional support will be vital.
  • archival storage – does each region, or the country, need an archival store for the journals that many now hold electronically?  This issue was raised particularly in the context of JSTOR’s Arts & Science Collections I, II and III, which every Australian university now has access to, thanks to a grant from the government’s Systemic Infrastructure Initiative last year. 
  • bibliometrics – Cathrine Harboe-Ree (Monash University) referred to a bibliometrics information kit prepared by Monash to enhance our understanding of bibliometrics and how they may be used, and to describe a recent workshop on assessing quantitative performance indicators.
  • repository projects – member institutions have been leading a number of government-funded projects around the design, development and establishment of institutional repositories.  Most are well advanced, and some are new.
    • ARROW – Australian Research Repositories Online to the World, led by Monash.
    • APSR – Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories, led by ANU.
    • ADT (Australian Digital Theses) Expansion and Redevelopment Project, led by UNSW, now with bibliographic references to nearly all Australian historical research theses, whether or not the full text is yet available. 
    • RUBRIC (Regional Universities Building Research Infrastructure Collaboratively), led by USQ, to build on the earlier repositories projects and make possible their implementation in smaller, regional universities.
  • National Licensing Project – CAUL has participated in the development of protocols for national licensing, but referring to its own highly-developed purchasing program, CEIRC, it recognises that the project’s real achievement will be if a high proportion of public and school libraries also gain access to the kind of electronic services that universities now enjoy.  The National Library is leading the project and CAUL members will participate under the same “opt-in” conditions that currently apply under CEIRC arrangements.
  • workforce planning – CAUL members are concerned about the maturing workforce, the levels of recruitment of people with the new skills required, succession planning, etc.  This is no different in other sectors, but a number of approaches are being taken
    • the Western Australian Group of University Libraries (WAGUL) looked at which elements of staff development could be undertaken cooperatively.  The 35 actions could be divided into four key areas – discussion with library schools (10);  promoting librarianship and recruitment (7); recruitment (7) and skills (11);
    • the Libraries of the Australian Technology Network (LATN) are developing an inventory of skills and attributes focussing on the changing environment, rather than on traditional skills;
    • Andrew Wells, a mentor in the Aurora program, encouraged members to put forward their brightest and best young professionals to the program, and ensure that it is followed up with a variety of experience which will stimulate and stretch them.

Minutes of all CAUL meetings, other than the CEIRC committee, are openly accessible on the CAUL web site.

The ADT program has expanded in 2005 to include membership by all CONZUL universities.  29 universities are actively submitting full-text theses, now over 4,300 in the database, and an additional 150,000 records of print theses.  Marion Bate, formerly Principal Librarian at the University of NSW, and leader of the original ADT Project, was presented with the international ETD Leadership Award for 2005 by the ETD (Electronic Theses and Dissertations) conference committee.

CAUL’s Electronic Information Resources Committee (CEIRC) program now includes 48 university libraries and 24 other higher education and research organisations from Australia and new Zealand, various sub-sets of whom participate in CAUL’s 95 current agreements for electronic journals, books and databases.  These CEIRC subscriptions are worth $240m at list price, but the cost to members is just $37m.

The CAUL Executive Committee for 2005 is: 

President – Eve Woodberry, University of New England
Deputy President - Andrew Wells, University of New South Wales
Cathrine Harboe-Ree, Monash University
Jeff Murray, Edith Cowan University
Derek Whitehead, Swinburne University

The CEIRC Committee for 2005 is:

Chair - Heather Gordon, University of the Sunshine Coast
Andrew Wells, University of New South Wales
Craig Anderson, RMIT University
Martin Borchert, Griffith University
Neil Renison, James Cook University
John Redmayne, Massey University, representing CONZUL
Tom Girke, CSIRO

Felicity McGregor, University of Wollongong, chairs CAUL’s Best Practice Working Group and Ruth Quinn, Charles Darwin University, chairs its Information Literacy Working Group.

For more information see the CAUL web site:

http://www.caul.edu.au/

http://adt.caul.edu.au/

http://www.caul.edu.au/datasets/ceirc.htm

http://www.caul.edu.au/meetings/

Diane Costello, Executive Officer, CAUL.
18 November 2005
***********************************

Back to the top