SOPAG Meeting, December 7, 2001 - Meeting with Heads of All Campus Groups - Action Minutes

See also http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/

Present: J. Tanno (Chair), T. Dearie (also Chair of Resource Sharing Committee), N. Douglas (Chair of Heads of Technical Services), J. Hanson (Chair of Heads of Public Services), B. Hurley, C. Howard, C. Johns (also Chair of Collection Development Committee), J. Kochi, S. Lessick, B. Miller, P. Mirsky (Recorder), K. McGirr, J. Ober, H. Schmidt (Chair of Library Technology Advisory Group)
Absent: A. Bunting

1. Introductions and Background

This was a special meeting of SOPAG to which the Heads of the All-Campus Groups had been invited. The purpose of the meeting was as follows:

• Foster communication between SOPAG and the All-Campus Groups and among the Groups
• Clarify and discuss the Groups' Goals and Objectives for 2001/2002
• Identify current and future initiatives that might impact the work of the Groups
• Revise Goals and Objectives as appropriate

B. Hurley, Chair of the Committee, presented the report to the group. (See http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/DPACFinalReport.pdf for complete report and
http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/dpaccharge.html for its charge.)

The Committee's charge provides the following as background for its creation:
The long-term retention of digital library materials represents an urgent problem for the University of California. Faculty are hesitant to embrace publishing in "electronic only" formats, as they require more assurance that their scholarship will endure through time. In addition, UC Libraries need to create an environment where these digital materials become part of their permanent collections, thus ensuring they are available for use by future generations of scholars. Finally, the University must be concerned with protecting its significant and growing investment in these digital assets.

ACTION: Following lengthy discussion, SOPAG approved the recommendation of the Committee that the UC Libraries establish a centralized UC Library preservation repository service as outlined in the Report. Tanno will forward the Report to the University Librarians along with SOPAG's endorsement. In addition, he will inform the ULs that SOPAG supports reprogramming of the systemwide preservation funds to establish the UC preservation repository at the CDL.  If the ULs agree with this recommendation, they will need to discuss the recommendation for CDL administration of the repository with CDL, appoint a preservation repository management board with the membership along the lines recommended by the report and to appoint an implementation team under the aegis of the CDL as soon as possible.

J. Kochi, SOPAG's liaison to the Task Force, presented the group's report to SOPAG. (see http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/TFAIReport1.pdf for complete Task Force report and http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/tfai.html for its charge.)

The context and rationale for the group's creation stems from the increasing desire on the part of libraries and librarians to develop a clearer understanding of the relationship among our various catalogs, databases, and web pages as access paths to library materials. Our current methods of maintaining lists, directories, catalogs and separate databases have created greater difficulties for our users in accessing our electronic (and print) resources. The group was asked to develop a White Paper, which would explore these issues and bring them to a broad discussion level.

ACTION: Tanno will thank the group for its report and forward it to the All-Campus Groups for more discussion and feedback (not all the groups had had an opportunity to undertake that discussion before the SOPAG meeting). SOPAG will provide a framework within which that discussion should take place to ensure  the groups address the conceptual issues as well as the specific recommendations. SOPAG will continue its conceptual and specific discussions at subsequent meetings.

S. Lessick, SOPAG's liaison to the Task Force presented the group's report. The group's charge is at: http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/digreftf.html and the report is now available at http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/DigitalReference.pdf The Task Force's report was distributed to SOPAG shortly before the meeting and has not yet benefited from review and discussion by the All-Campus Groups.

ACTION: Tanno will send the report to the All-Campus Groups for discussion and feedback. The report will also be posted on the SOPAG website.

SOPAG and the All-Campus Group Chairs began a discussion of the specific goals and objectives of the Groups but quickly segued into the more general discussion of how to improve the effectiveness of the groups and the communication between and among the various groups.  Structural issues such as unevenness in the understanding/commitment of individual group members about their roles and responsibilities were cited as stumbling blocks to greater effectiveness. In addition, the lack of clarity regarding the relationship of the Groups to either SOPAG-appointed Task Forces or CDL standing advisory groups was also cited as factor in decreased effectiveness. Some groups consider themselves to be self-directed (they develop their agendas independently of SOPAG direction) while others have considered their role to be more reactive. Suggestions were made that the Groups might consider more frequent interactions (the groups typically meet twice a year) and use email and conference calls to move agendas more expeditiously. Finally, there appears to be concern that service on the All-Campus Groups is not viewed uniformly as an important systemwide contribution.

ACTION: In order for SOPAG to have more information about how campuses view participation in All-Campus Groups and their effectiveness, Tanno will charge SOPAG members to hold campus level talks regarding the value to the campus of the Groups and whether or not this is viewed as an effective way to collaborate systemwide.

J. Ober presented a background document that he had created for the University Librarians about UC's participation in the DLF. UCB and CDL are the two members of DLF but other campus libraries have participated in DLF activities. Discussion to date confirms broad interest in increasing both UC participation and information about DLF activities. While sharing information can be addressed fairly straightforwardly, Ober identified the shared challenge and interest in identifying opportunities to have UC expertise and priorities incorporated into the DLF agenda.

ACTION: Ober will identify mechanisms to increase the information at DLF that is made available to the campus libraries. The workshop proposal for a survey of UC DL projects (in development) will have as a goal the identification of common challenges and expertise that could be shared in DLF venues. Ober and Tanno will collaborate on the communication to the ULs on this issue.

There was insufficient time to address this item, which was recast as "Collection Management, both print and digital, post-CMI and within current budget situation" item deferred until next meeting.

As a follow up to discussions at the Joint ULs/SOPAG meeting of October 26, 2001, the e-Scholarship initiative was asked to identify ways to improve the linkages between the initiative and the campus libraries, especially with regard to faculty communications.

ACTION: CDL will draft a proposal that would establish a strategic and programmatic liaison at each campus library for the e-Scholarship initiative.

• Rights Management in a Digital Environment
• ARL E-Metrics Initiative

Go to SOPAG home page