National Resource Sharing Working Group
Minutes of the Seventh Meeting, 29-30 June 2000
Attendees
Susan Magnay (Chair)
Sharon Howells
Donna Runner
Margaret Gauld
Christine Cother
Dianne Ollerenshaw
Toby
Burrows
Cynthia Love
Charu Sood
Tom Ruthven
Kristen
Ritchie
Patricia Woods (Minutes)
Apologies
Sue Grimes
1. Minutes of last meeting
Minutes accepted as an accurate record of the meeting.
2. Apologies
Apologies were received from Sue Grimes.
3. Business arising
No business arising.
4. Standards
Ms Sood gave a brief summary of the discussions of the Standards SubCommittee meeting of 19 May 2000. The SubCommittee recommended Model 3 and agreed that the Draft ILL Code would be a broad principles document with an accompanying Guide to best practice.
The Working Group then considered Part 2 of the Discussion Paper. Editorial changes were agreed.
2.2 Definitions:
A number of amendments were made to the Definitions section to clarify the definitions.
2.3 Pricing Issues
The Working Group agreed that the concept of levies be retained. Any references to prices should indicate they are recommended or advisory prices only. Recommended prices should be based on current prices.
2.5 Recommended Prices and GST
The Working Group agreed that recommended prices should be GST inclusive, and should include a statement that prices include GST
2.6 Delivery methods
The Working Group agreed that there should be a recommended delivery method for each service level where the requester did not specify a delivery method.
2.7 Cost of delivery
The Working Group agreed that charges for local fax be abolished, and the charge of STD faxes be revised downwards to $3.00. No recommended rate would be set for international faxes.
2.8 The Stages of ILL transaction table highlights delays which occur during the requesting librarys part of the process, and should be linked to Guide to Best Practice document. The supplying librarys turnaround time is only part of the process. The issue of performance standards for requesting libraries needs to be flagged. The Benchmarking Study and Standards discussion will help raise awareness of the interdependence of libraries.
A dot point Patron has received item should be added to the table to complete the cycle.
2.8 Stages of the ILL transaction and 2.9 Requesting library standards should be moved, and should appear in the document after 2.2.
The document should include a recommendation after each point, with a list of recommendations in an executive summary.
Stages of ILL transaction
Members of the Working Group provided information on scenarios of various ILL transactions. This information will be used to provide bar charts to illustrate the stages of the ILL process.
Action: Ms Woods
Models
All models need a statement that recommended prices are for black and white copies of documents up to 30 pages, with an additional cost for longer or complex documents, such as colour copies and fragile materiel. The supplying library will decide on how much it is prepared to copy. A similar statement should also be included in the Guide to Best Practice.
The order of the service levels in all models should be reversed, with the Premium Track service listed first.
The Working Group agreed that it was not practicable to set an earlier response time for negative requests.
Model 1
Business day should be defined.
Courier charges Some libraries are unable to provide courier services. The Working Group agreed to remove courier as a recommended delivery method at a recommended price. Courier delivery to be by arrangement between libraries. A statement on courier delivery should be included in Guide to Best Practice.
It was agreed that Express Post be retained as a recommended delivery mode, with a recommended price.
Ms Woods to revisit the document on express post charges to provide more detailed prices based on Australia Post standard charges.
The Working Group agreed editorial changes to Model 1, and reordering some of the points.
Model 2
The Working Group agreed on some editorial changes.
Model 3
The Working Group agreed that the Basic service level would be the default where the Normal service level could not be met. The Basic level would not be able to be requested.
The Normal service level would be mandatory for those libraries agreeing to adhere to the code. The other service levels would be optional.
The Working Group agreed that Model 3 should be the recommended model.
Action: The standards paper and Guide to Best Practice to be amended as agreed. Express Post charges to be checked.
ILL Code
The Working Group agreed on some editorial changes.
The principles should be reordered to a more logical order by grouping similar topics.
The point dealing with copyright law and the point dealing with supply to individuals should be removed as the Working Group considered that these issues were not appropriate to the ILL Code.
The Code and the Guide to Best Practice are intended to be complementary but independent documents, able to be used separately. Therefore some points may need to be included in both documents.
Action: The ILL Code to be amended as agreed.
Guide to Best Practice
This was not discussed at the meeting. Working Group members should provide comments to either Patricia Woods or Tom Ruthven by 7 July.
Action: Working Group member to forward comments.
5. ILRS Directory
Judith Pearce gave a presentation on the ILRS redevelopment project. Goals of the project are :
- Enhance ALG by merging ILRS service
- Migrate data to X500 test bed for Pride project
Ms Pearce is also engaged in the development of a draft directory schema, monitoring of data dictionary standards, participation in review of ISO 2146.
Features of the ILRS directory are:
- ALG and ILRS will share data.
- Libraries will be able to update their own records
- A NUC symbol is not a requirement of a directory entry
- There can be no more than one current NUC symbol
- ILRS administrator will create new entries, this is to ensure authority control on library names.
The Group made a number of suggestions:
- The ability to clone record for copying information from one record to another, with the ability to change one record and automatically change others.
- Brief display should include name, NUC and address and compliance with ILL code and suspensions, and whether first resort or last resort library.
- For libraries who indicate compliance with the ILL Code, there should be a chart of recommended charges which could be edited.
6. Development of strategy for consultation on standards
The following process for consultation on the standards was agreed:
- Endorsement would be sought from the National Resource Sharing Policy Committee
- Endorsement would then be sought, via the Director-General, National Library, from CAUL, CASL and ALIA. The next meeting of CAUL and CASL will be in October. Support would also be sought from these groups to promote the standards.
- The ALIA conference was suggested as a possible launch venue. This deadline was considered too tight, as time to publish the ILL Code was also required. Launch of the standards at the OnLine OnDisc Conference, to be held in January 2001, was considered feasible.
Communication strategy would include:
- Advance publicity on lists, Gateways and Web with general information
- Preparation of web pages, information packages aimed at different groups
- Launch at OnLine OnDisc Conference
- Roadshows to each State
A separate paper on a communication strategy for the standards would be developed by the Consultation SubCommittee.
A general statement reminding the library community of the consultation process and contributions in anticipation of the standards would be drafted. The statement would include general information only on the new standards, ILL code and Guide to Best Practice.
Action: Consultation Group to draft a statement on the Standards, and develop a communication strategy paper.
7. Benchmarking Study
Ms Sood provided background on the process to date for revising the Study materials. Initial changes were made by National Library staff, with feedback then being received from the Data Collection and Survey Sub-Committee and Mary Jackson.
It was noted that letters had been sent to the Council of Australian University Libraries, the Council of Australian State Libraries, the Australian Library and Information Association and the Federal Libraries Information Network asking for support for the Study and assistance in recruiting libraries to participate. The aim was to have all University and National/State/Territory libraries participate and at least 20 from the public and special library sectors.
The suggestion that TAFE libraries should also be included was supported by the meeting.
Action: Study materials to be revised to include TAFE libraries.
Survey Materials
The meeting suggested changes and areas for clarification in the Study materials including:
- Staff worksheet and instructions should show a staff identifier as an alternative to staff names,
- clarify how cuckoos should be dealt with in the Study;
- question on patrons and ILL requests should be reordered and rewritten to avoid confusion;
- temporary/casual staff category should be clarified to include only staff employed on an hourly basis;
- clarify that reporting periods may differ between organisations;
- include payment types in the instructions for worksheet 8: payments received;
- change the turnaround time example to include a commercial document supplier; and
- add an additional option for 'work purposes' in the last question of the user survey.
Action: Ms Ritchie to make all suggested changes.
Pilot study
It was agreed that a pilot study would be the best way of testing the survey materials. All NRSWG member libraries would be involved in the pilot study, if possible, to ensure members were well informed about the study to answer queries from potential participating libraries. The additional Data Collection and Survey Committee members would also be approached to participate.
Action: Ms Ritchie to arrange for running of a pilot study from late July to mid-August.
A teleconference to discuss feedback from the pilot study was scheduled for Thursday 24th August, 2pm EST.
8. Communication strategy for benchmarking study
Members supported the use of a standard email to post to relevant lists, and the use of a 'Frequently Asked Questions' paper for enquiries. Suggestions were made for improving the draft materials provided.
Members agreed to post the recruitment email to networks and email lists they were involved with to publicise the Study to TAFE, special and public libraries.
Action: Ms Ritchie to make changes to publicity materials.
Ms
Magnay to provide information on communicating with TAFE library staff.
Ms
Ritchie would distribute a list of email lists and the member who had agreed to
post to each group.
The Working Group thanked Ms Ritchie for her work on the Benchmarking Study.
9. Report on Expert Advisory Group on access to Electronic Resources
Mr Burrows provided a brief report on the Group.
Goals of the Group were:
- Improving the availability of cataloguing and location information for resources
- Reducing maintenance costs for records on NBD
Activities of the Group include:
- Pilot project with Science Direct involving 1100 records
- Developing draft bibliographic standards
- Developing a draft specification for location and availability information standards
The Group plans to conduct a survey on which collections libraries are subscribing to and availability of document delivery in the licence agreements.
Workplans of the Group
- Approaching publishers and suppliers on the availability of bibliographic records and their quality
- Developing a service model on who is responsible for what
- Single record for alternate formats.
- Finalising bibliographic standards and location specifications
More information is available on the NLA web page at http://www.nla.gov.au/kinetica/eag_aer.html
Comments from NRSWG members are welcome.
10. Report on ALIA Expert Advisory Group
Ms Howells gave a brief presentation on the ALIA Expert Advisory Group. Terms of reference of the group are awaiting approval from the ALIA Board of Directors. The terms of reference and membership of the Group will be announced soon. Draft terms of reference include
- Review of the scale of charges
- Costing study (to be done by an outside body after the NRSWGs benchmarking study)
- Review of the ILL Code
- Addressing the directions from the merger of ALIA and ACLIS.
The EAG is an internal advisory group to the ALIA Board of Directors only, not a working group or action group.
The members of the Working Group expressed the view that there was a need for more formal discussions between ALIA and the NRSWG, the National Library, CAUL and CASL on the work of the ALIA EAG. Ms Howells agreed to convey this message to ALIA.
11. Other business
Charu Sood has resigned from the NRSWG as she is taking up a new position with the Australian Taxation Office. Tom Ruthven, National Library, will take her place. The Working Group thanked Ms Sood for her contribution to the work of the NRSWG. Mr Ruthven was formally welcomed to the Working Group.
12. Next meeting
To be decided.
Meeting closed 3.50 pm
