November 1996
NEW TECH NEWS--DVD: Will It Replace CD-ROM?
Staff Profile: FEDLINK Fiscal Operations Computer Specialists
Joint CAPCON/FEDLINK Program Addresses Electronic Journals Today
Update: Library Technicians' Training
Getting the Word Out: Advocating Your Library's Information Services
ABACUS Measures Benefits of FEDLINK Use
NEW! Course Registration Online
Still Available: Qualification Needs for Federal Librarians
New! FY97 Services Directory Online
|
| Keynote Speaker Jose-Marie Griffiths |
In order to produce web pages, CD-ROMs or database systems, librarians often must combine their subject, reference, and cataloging expertise with the skills of their agency's Information Resource Management (IRM) staff.
Such partnerships can be difficult to negotiate. On September 24, the 1996 FLICC Symposium on the Information Professional--entitled "Dangerous Liaisons? Partnering With Computer Professionals to Create Digital Information Services"--brought representatives from libraries and IRM departments together to share partnership strategies.
The day was split into two parts: a morning session entitled "Our Skills--Their Projects," and an afternoon session, "Their Skills--Our Projects." Keynote speakers set the tone for each session.
Jose-Marie Griffiths, Executive Director and Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the University of Michigan's Information Technology Division, presented the morning's keynote speech. "Our ability to create liaisons is based on our ability to define our role," said Griffiths. Despite many librarians' fears that online searching will replace library functions, she finds liaisons with computer professionals exciting rather than dangerous.
"Librarians are the people who manage, understand, collect, and disseminate information," she said. "We have true user focus [and therefore should] mediate the interface between people and resources."
Such mediation involves using tools to create, capture, organize, present, store, retrieve, analyze, deliver, and preserve information. Librarians must also be prepared to design, build, and structure systems and interfaces for electronic publishing and information delivery.
In contrast, Griffiths suggested, IRM staff are more involved with the physical and infrastructrual aspects of computing. Because such technological know-how must be combined with librarians' expertise with information, the "ideal team" for producing electronic information products would include both a knowledge manager and an IRM professional.
Steve Hufford, IRM Director at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chaired the agency's Government Information Locator Service (GILS) workgroup. "At EPA, the librarians have a much better grasp on the information than the rest of us," he said. Librarians helped the GILS workgroup identify relevant information resources, created descriptive records, and assigned controlled vocabulary terms. They also respond to user requests for additional information, and will be responsible for maintaining, expanding, and further organizing the site.
Gerri Michael-Dyer is the Electronic Dissemiation Advisor for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. A librarian by training, Michael-Dyer helped to create a web site (http://www.ahcpr.gov) which offers agency information, research reports, consumer health information, a GILS, and a topical index. She suggested that librarians should be included in the planning of all agency products, as they can offer insights to available resources. She encouraged librarians to be proactive, to "investigate, incubate, insinuate, infiltrate, and integrate" projects.
Phyllis Christenson, Director of the General Accounting Office (GAO) Information Service Center, has presided over the evolution of the agency library into an electronic information service provider. "I'm wildly excited about what's happening," she said. "I love the techies." Now under the management of the GAO Chief Information Officer, the Information Service Center includes publishing, telecommunications, information services (http://www.gao.gov), networks, and software functions. Christenson urged librarians to actively pursue opportunities to distribute reports, manage records, spearhead GILS initiatives, and bring Internet functions into the agency. Above all, she entreated, "please embrace change."
Kenneth Thibodeaux, Director of the Center for Electronic Records at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) stressed that technological functions must be subordinated to the mission of preserving information for future generations. "The archivists need to tell tech people what needs to be done," he said. "The technology should help us, not lead us." He warned that IRM staff members tend to play their technological strong suit, and suggested that librarians work very closely with them in order to ensure that information is preserved carefully in a format that will remain accessible.
 |
| Howard Harris, VP RMG Associates |
For example, libraries need to plan acquisitions and services in connection with the information needs of their core users, creating information products which are "just in time" and "just for me." They need to create budgets and schedules which allow ongoing purchases to facilitate technological improvement and electronic acquisition. They need to work on integrating systems and services rather than purchasing discrete systems which may conflict with emerging software and language standards. They need to move from analog to digital resources, catalogs, and document delivery.
Because of the convergence of information professions, Harris suggested, it is not always easy to tell if a team project is "ours" or "theirs"--if it falls under the purview of an agency's library or IRM staff. "How can we tell?" he asked.
Certain questions help to clarify the situation. Are team members' goals for the project shared or in conflict? Who is funding the project? How visible is the project within the organization, and is the potential for recognition causing friction between departments? Who has the power to delegate tasks? Who is accountable for the success or failure of the project? Whose skills are most crucial to the project's completion? In order to work together successfully, it helps to answer these questions early in the life of the project.
"All of us are going to have to learn a great deal to work on a team," concluded Harris.
Mike Handy describes himself as "a migrator." Group Leader of the User Support Group at the Library of Congress division of Information Technology Services, he is a librarian by training who is now in charge of an 8,000 line PBX, a 5,000 node TCP/IP Network, maintenance of all LC workstations, and the future development of LC networks.
"I manage us-and-them relationships all day long," said Handy. He provided a set of "gross generalizations about good technical people" which librarians might find helpful:
Handy offered a few recommendations to ease relations between librarians and IRM staff: Put things in writing. Quantify where possible. Ask lots of questions. Meet with them one-on-one instead of in groups. And "co-opt them for your projects--but keep their manager informed."
Sybil Bullock, Director of the Redstone Scientific Information Center (RSIC), manages a 4,000,000 item library which serves both government agencies and contractors. She discussed several digital information products that she has worked on, including the conversion of over 300,000 pages to 12 standalone CD-ROMs and the creation of a full text Web-accessible RSIC database of reports, books, and manuals ( https://rsic.redstone.army.mil/). Bullock defines the "virtual library" as "a library that uses virtually every tool available to provide virtually every service imaginable." However, she advised librarians, "don't get so bogged down in technology that you don't serve your customers."
Debora Cheney, Head of the Documents/Maps Section of Pennsylvania State University Library, related some of the internal power struggles that she faced while working to link her department to the GPO Access system. "What is missing in the partnership rhetoric," she suggested, "is the discussion of internal partnerships within an organization." Management style, politics, the available resource base, terminology, and the type of organizational service may all skew internal partnerships.
Jane Bossert, a Digital Conversion Specialist at LC's National Digital Library Program, discussed the development of the National Digital Library Program (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ammemhome.html). Bottlenecks have arisen as library and computer professionals at LC collaborated on the project. Bossert offered suggestions to improve communication and workflow. It is very important, she said, to communicate with all levels of staff members working on the project, on a one-to-one basis if possible. Project plans should be jointly developed and should set achievable goals. It is helpful to form working groups to address particularly complicated or sensitive tasks. Finally, it may be helpful to publicly announce goals--such as the National Digital Library Program goal of digitizing 5 million items by the year 2000--in order to motivate project participants.
Judith Zidar, Head of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) Imaging and Conversion Unit, was the day's final speaker. "This is a topic near and dear to my heart," said Zidar. "Working with computer professionals is really an adventure."
Zidar coordinates the National Agricultural Text Digitizing Program (NATDP), a cooperative effort between the NAL and 45 Land Grant Libraries which uses optical scanning and text recognition technologies to convert printed agricultural materials to data stored on CD-ROMs. Because NATDP was designed specifically to capture reference materials, users were asked to participate in system design along with system managers, vendors, and SGML coordinators. She credited much of the program's success to the input from multiple levels of users.
This program will be covered in greater depth in the Winter Issue of the FLICC Newsletter. If you do not receive the FLICC Newsletter and would like a copy, please call FLICC at (202) 707-4800. More detailed proceedings are also available on the FLICC Home Page at http://lcweb.loc.gov/flicc/danglia.html.
This is the question that all of us who own CD-ROM drives and collections should be asking. In order to get a clear answer, other questions must be answered first. Exactly what is DVD? Where did DVD come from? What does it have to offer library users? Read on and inform yourself of CD-ROM's heir apparent.
DVD stands for Digital Video Disc. Another name, less widespread yet more appropriate, is Digital Versatile Disc. From a distance, DVD physically resembles CD-ROM. Both are 5-inch Compact Discs. However, up close, too small to be seen by the unaided eye, are radical differences in the way information is burned onto the CD. The general result is a CD that has seven times the storage capacity of a CD-ROM disc. A DVD disc contains 4.7 gigabytes compared to CD-ROM's 670 megabytes.
Developers claim that a single DVD disc will comfortably hold over two hours of MPEG-2-quality video. This compares to only 74 minutes on the current CD-ROM. In this way, DVD can be viewed as the ultimate in multimedia formats. But even regular database users will enjoy the luxury of larger amounts of data per disc.
DVD was born out of the combined efforts of two previously competing groups of CD-ROM manufacturers, Sony/Phillips and Time Warner/Toshiba. After months of intense development of a new high-density CD-ROM standard and an unavoidable stalemate, all parties committed themselves to developing a single standard. What they came up with were a set of specifications for DVD software and hardware.
The bad news is that backward compatibility will be a welcome invitation for PC users to experiment with the new technology. The sole initial sacrifice will be in purchasing another peripheral, namely a DVD drive to accompany or replace their CD-ROM drive. The end result will be a growing demand for libraries to stock DVD titles. If you don't think this can happen, recall how 1.44 Megabyte floppies replaced 720 Kilobyte floppy. Software developers utilized this increase in storage capacity because it meant easier delivery of their products to the end user. It's possible that publishers will make the same move to a more robust medium.
The ability to write to a Digital Video Disc is noticeably missing from the current specifications. When CD recordable technology became part of the mainstream of desktop computing, DVD developers were eager to offer DVD users the same ability to write to their own discs. The use of such a technology was aimed at replacing tape backup systems and removable hard drives as the archiver's tool of choice.
However, those in the motion picture business saw a potential risk for copyright infringement. After all, the movie industry views DVD as a potential delivery device much like the now ubiquitous VHS tape. Until DVD developers can guarantee that DVD hardware can protect movies on Digital Video Discs from easy replication, the technology will remain out of the hands of desktop computer users.
Will DVD technology rival CD-ROM technology? The answer may lie in the difference in performance of either standard. The first DVD players on the market offer only a minimal improvement in seek times over the CD-ROM drive. The DVD player's main strength lies in its ability to stream two-hour long videos to your computer's or TV's screen.
So what does that mean to the library? Is it really important to provide another way of letting patrons watch major motion picture releases? Hasn't the CD-ROM sufficed at providing a rich multimedia reference for students? Are we all ready to throw out both our CD-ROM drives and our VCRs for another entertainment device? I don't think so. Even if a Digital Video Disc offers seven times the storage capacity of text documents, the installed base of CD-ROM drives and titles in libraries is enough to insure their importance in library services.
DVD may eventually replace CD-ROM drives in home PCs, but not in a public or school's library media center. If people want superior quality video they already have the Laser disc option. However, if they want the ability to search volumes of text in a timely fashion, libraries already have the CD-ROM.
 |
| FFD Computer Specialists Boris Bohum-Chudyniv, Nate Trail, and Frank Ju |
FFO Computer Specialists Boris Bohun-Chudyniv, Nate Trail, and Frank Ju work to streamline the automation of member and vendor transactions and account reconciliations and provide internal computing support.
The three bring varied experiences to their positions. Bohun-Chudyniv came to FEDLINK in 1994 from the LC Federal Research Division (FRD), where he worked on research topics ranging from the role of the UN in the former Yugoslavia to projections about science and technology in the year 2015. At FRD, he designed and ran personnel tracking software; he also designed financial software for American University. He has also taught Russian, psychology, and physics at the college level, has done extensive graduate-level coursework in systems analysis and design, and spent some time as a professional photographer.
"I'm totally scattered," joked Bohun-Chudyniv, who has spent the past year researching programs which will be used to rewrite FEDLINK's DOS-based SYMIN system into a Windows95-based, object-oriented system.
Trail has been at FEDLINK since 1992; he began work at the Library of Congress in its intern program. He received his MLS from Louisiana State University after moving from Alaska, where he worked as a programmer for small business and government applications. While in Alaska, Trail also drove a cab and acted as the cab company's dispatcher. "I learned to juggle many things at once," he said. "That's very helpful here at FEDLINK."
Ju is FEDLINK's newest Computer Specialist; he came in May from LC's Cataloging Distribution Service. He received his MS degree in computer science from SUNY Binghamton in 1982, and also holds an MS in chemistry. Ju worked as a programmer and systems analyst in private industry for eight years before coming to LC in 1990.
The largest project that Bohun-Chudyniv, Trail, and Ju are working on is rewriting the FEDLINK SYMIN system in Delphi. Delphi is a Windows-based, object-oriented language which allows programmers to quickly design input and output screens and produce custom reports. Other new Windows-based programs such as CodeWrite, Visio 4.1, and the Corel WordPerfect Suite will allow the Computer Specialists and other FEDLINK staff members to quickly create technical documentation, flowcharts, and presentations.
The switch to a Delphi-based system corresponds with an office-wide switch from DOS to the Windows95 platform. Staff members using this platform will find it easier to "task swap," so they can simultaneously consult member information stored in various programs. This switch also corresponds to changes in the industry which are rendering DOS obsolete. "We have to keep ahead to stay in place," Bohun-Chudyniv commented.
Another recent project involved connecting Library of Congress Contracts and Logistics (LC/C&L) directly with FEDLINK's SYMIN system. This will reduce the flow of paper between the two offices, which are located in different regions, and speed up the processing of members' delivery orders. Plans are underway to create a similar connection between LC's Financial Services Directorate (FSD) and the SYMIN system.
In the long term, the Computer Specialists hope to make member account information and registration accessible via the FLICC/FEDLINK Home Page. However, they must first examine methods for ensuring that password-protected transactions would remain secure. In the meantime, they are working on making more detailed account information available via the ALIX system.
Despite all of these changes, no plans are afoot to dismantle paper-based or even modem-based transmission of member information. "There are enough different kinds of members that we have to maintain several levels of technology," Trail explained. "Of course, the speed of the services we provide increases as the level of technology increases."
The well-attended program began with a keynote about publisher concerns which was followed by three panels addressing the issues of collection development, pricing and licensing, and access. Partnerships and experimentation were common themes. Speakers came from the library, vendor, and publishing community.
| Technology | The Mad Hatter |
| Access & Distribution | Alice & the Caterpillar |
| Ease of Use | The Queen of Hearts |
| Pricing & Licensing | The Croquet Game |
| Copyright | The King's Court |
| Critical Mass | The Cheshire Cat |
| Digital Production | The Red Queen |
| Quality & Peer Review | The Caucus Race |
Follow-up questions and concerns centered around the need for metadata; the role of professional associations; database structure; collective group self-publishing and author self-publishing (and the trade-off between sustainability and the enthusiasm of the volunteer effort); and complications with legal reference publishing, as many judges do not accept electronic citations as authoritative.
Bruce Heterick of Faxon, and Chip Nilges of OCLC, concurred that there will be an important role for intermediaries and each described similar projects debuting in early 1997.
David Barber of OhioLINK described the network's objectives when developing consortial licenses. Their main objectives are to increase the utility of library investment at a faster rate than cost so the value of the transaction is improved and to create a positive and sustainable basis for the continued economic exchange between the two parties. They have an extensive wish list and he noted that ILL rights are the most difficult and controversial of the points on their list to negotiate with producers.
Bernard Rous of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) summarized the association's publishing view. Their business model tries to maintain net revenue while retooling the production system at the same time. He noted that intellectual expression should not be treated as economic property; instead, the costs of building safeguards must be balanced against the costs to the user and user needs such as intense specialization, fast access, and filters.
Stephanie Publicker of the National Institutes of Health Library identified key issues in electronic journal access: the use of CD ROMs vs. remote access and proprietary software vs. WWW or online access; supplying equal access to all types of computer users (IBM, MAC, SUN); journal selection criteria; user acceptance; entry points (NIH prefers IP addresses over passwords); getting the word out/promotion; and statistics. Web access is most useful because it is platform-independent.
CAPCON and FEDLINK staff were delighted with both the interest in this program and the opportunity to work together to bring it to our members. We look forward to other collaborations.
Watch Your Mail
Forthcoming:
Supervisors echoed a number of the ideas suggested by technicians in an earlier meeting, such as training in the steps of acquisitions and processing, online bibliographic searching, and communicating with patrons. They also agreed that Internet courses would be valuable for career development.
In addition, the managers stressed that technicians need a more holistic understanding of the role that they play. Because changes in agency structure and funding may bring technicians with no previous experience into federal libraries, courses which provide an overview of library processes would be helpful. Supervisors also suggested that technicians might benefit from basic courses about specialized reference materials such as government documents and legal, medical, and science and technology resources.
Both groups agreed that FEDLINK should try to establish a course of study which would lead to a certificate of completion.
The committee hopes to begin library technician training in the spring of 1997. Members would like to continue to receive input from both technicians and managers as the planning process continues. Please contact FEDLINK Network Program Specialist Steve Kerchoff at (202) 707-4848 (email: sker@loc.gov) or Committee member Fred Rettenmaier of the Naval Research Laboratory at (202) 767-5363 (email: fredr@library.nrl.navy.mil) with your questions or suggestions.
Keynote speaker Steven Abram, Director, Corporate and News Information, Micromedia Limited, will provide a grounding in marketing fundamentals and techniques for advocating library services within an organization.
Next, a panel of federal librarians will discuss the key political factors that affect both your ability to deliver quality services and the way your services are perceived. These factors include the library's position in the agency, intra-agency alliances, marketing and promotional endeavors, and the persona of the librarian.
Over a box lunch, attendees will divide into teams and discuss marketing and advocacy with colleagues who work in similar library settings. Because advocacy techniques work differently under different organizational pressures, the teams will be arranged by the library's size and mission, rather than by subject area:
National Libraries (NL)--which have a public and government service mission, and whose size, staffing, resources and breadth of programs present unique issues;
Academic Libraries (AL)--which design collections and services to support faculty and students;
Administrative Centers (AC)--which coordinate agency libraries and represent them to management, but do not themselves operate a library;
Headquarters or Central Libraries (HQ)--which manage the agency's primary library collection and information services and support the agency's other libraries;
Regional or Branch Libraries (RB)--which serve local agency staff and rely on a parent or sister libraries for additional resources and support;
One-person Libraries (OP)--which fulfill their users' needs with a staff of only one.
The teams will report back to the full group after lunch and FLICC will compile their observations and suggestions into a handout for participants. After the event, the team report will be published in a special section of the FLICC/FEDLINK Web site along with links to other advocacy guides and marketing tips from federal libraries.
After the team reporting session, Annette Gohlke, former Librarian of the Air Force will discuss ways to quantify the benefits of library/information services and the costs of marginalizing libraries.
Finally, we'll consider how database vendors are adapting to an information market driven by end-users and what changes in the market suggest for libraries. Herb White, the distinguished professor and commentator, will moderate a panel of vendors who will describe different strategies: creating attractive, consumer-oriented systems; designing powerful systems for the coming generation of computer-savvy users; or providing experts who'll guide the user or actually do his research for him/her.
| Agenda | ||
|---|---|---|
| 9:00 AM | Welcome & Introduction | Susan Tarr, FLICC Amy Begg, Reference Librarian, Smithsonian Institution Libraries |
| 9:10 AM | Keynote | Stephen Abram, Director, Corporate and News Information, Micromedia Limited |
| 10:00 AM | Break | |
| 10:15 AM | Maximizing Your Position | Moderator: Meg Williams, FEDLINK Panelists: Chuck Ralston, Director, Library Program, HQ US Army Forces Command Barbara Smith, Director, Smithsonian Institution Libraries (TBA) representative from 3rd or 11th Court of Appeals |
| Noon | Working Lunch | |
| 1:30 PM | Team Reports | |
| 2:15 PM | Running the Numbers | Annette Gohlke, Library Benchmarking International |
| 3:00 PM | Adapting Commercial Strategies | Moderator: Herb White, Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, Indiana University Panelists: Tamsen Dalrymple, OCLC David Brown, DIALOG William Lindberg, West Publishing |
| 4:15 PM | Wrap-Up | Stephen Abram and Herb White |
| 4:30 PM | Adjourn | |
OCLC sent one no-charge copy of PI per OCLC symbol. Libraries with subscriptions to multiple copies were asked to verify the number of copies at cost before they were mailed via a post card from OCLC. Libraries can also purchase additional copies (at cost) through FEDLINK. Copies of PI sorted by symbol are $7; sorted by institution name, $6.
OCLC Participating Institutions is now available on the OCLC Home Page (http://purl.oclc.org/oclc/pi). The WWW version of PI can be searched by Institution Name, OCLC Symbol, City, State, and Country, and also by other searchable fields.
The next print edition of PI, arranged by OCLC Symbol, will be published in January 1997. PI on the WWW is updated on a weekly basis. You can use the Web version to send changed or corrected information about your institution to OCLC. The Web Change Request form (http://www.oclc.org/oclc/pi/pichange.htm) is available on the OCLC Home Page for this purpose.
Changes for the printed January edition should be sent to OCLC no later than December 27, 1996.
If the WWW Change Request form is not convenient for you, you may also mail in
changes for the January edition, by mailing or faxing them to FEDLINK at:
fax--(202) 707-4873
or mail:
FEDLINK Network Operations
Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540-4935.
To meet OCLC's December 27 deadline, mailed changes and corrections must be received at FEDLINK by December 16.
Selectors, including bibliographers, collection development librarians, department librarians, or faculty, search the selection databases from either FirstSearch or PRISM Selection to identify new titles to be ordered. Two selection databases are currently available:
Once selectors locate a bibliographic record for a title they want to order, they can add brief order instructions and save the requests to the PRISM Selection Request File. From a bibliographic record in FirstSearch, you use the "order" action to save requests via the FirstSearch/PRISM Selection link. (To activate the "order" action, you need to toggle PRISM Selection "ON" in the FirstSearch Administrative module.) In PRISM Selection, order requests are saved using the "save" command. Using the PRISM Selection request file, collection development or acquisitions staff can retrieve and review these saved order requests, editing as necessary to add additional order instructions. Finally, acquisitions staff export bibliographic records with ordering instructions from the request file to the library's local ordering system to complete the order process. Some local systems are able to map the order instructions, contained in a local MARC field, into the local system order record to save having to rekey this information.
The OCLC Selection service is designed to improve productivity and reduce overall processing costs for selection and ordering. Because OCLC Selection allows an online bibliographic record containing order instructions to be passed electronically from a selector to acquisitions and finally to the local system order record, many benefits are gained. These include no more typing of order cards, elimination of rekeying of bibliographic and order data, fewer online searches, and ultimately times savings throughout the process. Because an online bibliographic citation is the foundation of the order request, fewer errors also result.
Libraries using the OCLC Selection service do not need to purchase additional hardware or software. Libraries may access it through any telecommunications method currently available on PRISM and FirstSearch.
Because OCLC Selection is integrated into the familiar PRISM and FirstSearch systems, signing up to use the service is easy. If your library already has FirstSearch access to WorldCat and/or Books in Print, all you need to do is request a new PRISM Selection authorization and you'll be on your way. Pricing of searching and exporting is also consistent with current PRISM and FirstSearch charges. A no-charge copy of the PRISM Selection User Guide, CBT and Reference Card will be provided to new OCLC Selection subscribers. If you would like more information about signing up for OCLC Selection, contact FEDLINK Network Operations.
Standard search charges apply (e.g. $0.48 per keyword search in the OLUC and $0.095 to export a record.) To search Books in Print from PRISM Selection, your institution must have a FirstSearch per search or subscription account to Books in Print. Books in Print is not available to libraries in Europe or the Asia Pacific Region via FirstSearch or PRISM. A subscription to Books in Print can be purchased for as low as $2000 for one port for a single institution.
R.R. Bowker's Books in Print contains approximately 1.5 million citations for in-print and forthcoming titles, and 600,000 out-of-print titles from over 55,000 North American publishers. The OCLC Online Union Catalog, the world's largest and most comprehensive database of general bibliographic information with more than 35 million records, has recently been expanded with foreign vendor files from Casalini Libri and Puvill Libros.
OCLC plans to add more selection databases in the future, which may feature additional foreign vendor files, nonbook materials, reviews and/or prepublication information.
The service was evaluated in trials at Loyola University in Chicago, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, and Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Several system enhancements have been implemented based upon recommendations from these trials.
OCLC Selection complements another OCLC service, PromptCat. OCLC Selection automates the technical services selection and ordering process, and PromptCat streamlines the process of getting new acquisitions into the hands of library patrons. If a library chooses to use both services, orders beginning in OCLC Selection can be submitted to a PromptCat vendor for automatic delivery of cataloging for those titles. Each service may be used independently as well.
OCLC distributes technical bulletins to describe the resource files. To date, the list includes:
The charge for searching a resource file is the standard $0.48 for a keyword search.
The Harvard database is a file of approximately 1.5 million bibliographic records of books and serials. The Harvard University Library and OCLC created these records as part of a retrospective conversion project.
The NetFirst database is an authoritative Internet directory that can serve as a cataloging tool for Internet resources. It indexes major Internet resource types, including Web pages, discussion lists, FTP sites, electronic publications, library catalogs, gopher sites, etc. NetFirst records contain author, title, publisher, Dewey Classification numbers, Library of Congress Subject Headings, points of contact, summary, access method, and related information.
The EUR-OP Resource File describes documents published by the Office of Official Publications for the European Communities (EUR-OP). Publishing in eleven languages, EUR-OP is the official publisher of all the organs of the European Union, such as the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the Court of Justice, and the European Investment Bank. EUR-OP publishes about 5,000 monographs and approximately 85 periodicals a year, as well as an important number of CD-ROMs, databases, videos, etc. EUR-OP's products focus on European Union developments in a variety of fields such as environment, social policy, education, economy, research and culture, together with numerous others.
Originally coded in SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language), EUR-OP Resource File records have been mapped to OCLC-MARC records and contain author, title, publisher, local subject headings and classification numbers, ISBN and ISSN, and information about related editions. You can use keyword searches to retrieve records from the EUR-OP Resource File. Although all types of materials may be represented, records are mainly in Books, Serials, or Visual Materials format.
OCLC will update the EUR-OP Resource File monthly.
Resource files are in files that separate from the OLUC, although you may search them after logging in to PRISM cataloging or ILL or Union Listing. Edit commands and commands for deriving new records for the OLUC from the resource files are explained in depth in the technical bulletins.
Some files provided by vendors are likewise special in nature, but are not loaded as separate databases. Another technical bulletin, #216, was published in May 1996 to explain "Vendor Records in the OCLC Online Union Catalog." Vendor records are not loaded into separate files. Currently Casalini Libri (OCLC symbol C3L) and Puvil Libros (OCLC symbol PL#) records have been loaded, and other vendors' records are under consideration.
OCLC loads the vendor files into the OLUC through an offline batchload process. When a vendor record matches an existing OLUC record, OCLC adds a vendor-specific 938 field to the master record. When no single unique match is found, OCLC adds the vendor record as a new record with a 938 field. Such records do not meet minimal-level cataloging standards. Whether a new record is added or a 938 field is added to an existing record, OCLC sets the vendor's OCLC symbol.
Catalogers cannot add, change, or delete the 938 field in master records. The 938 field is defined to include vendor specific ordering data such as terms of availability and price, any special status (e.g. out-of-print, not yet published, back-ordered), plus the name of the vendor. An index label, vn, has been added, so users may perform a keyword search and limit it to records for a particular vendor.
Recently, members have been asking for clearer documentation to help them justify their use of FEDLINK to their agency management--sometimes to substantiate requests for augmented financial support on the basis of projected savings in agency financial and contract services.
FEDLINK staff are eager to use such documentation to demonstrate the value of services for potential and current members who may be considering the cost/benefit ratio of the program. FEDLINK staff also need to be able to articulate the advantages of vendor participation in FEDLINK in order to bring new vendors into the program and to negotiate the best vendor discounts.
To clarify the advantages for members and vendors, FEDLINK contracted with Abacus Technology Corporation, a research and consulting firm that has conducted related studies for the Library of Congress. Following a preliminary analysis in July, Abacus staff began a series of discussions with selected FEDLINK vendors to determine vendors' perceptions of benefits from participating in the program. The seven vendors surveyed were able to identify some specific cost savings from working through FEDLINK, but they also enumerated many less tangible factors, as reflected in the summary chart below.
During November, Abacus will be completing its study by analyzing responses from five FEDLINK members and providing a similar listing of their reported benefits. FLICC Executive Director Susan Tarr will brief the FEDLINK Advisory Board on the results of this study early in 1997.
This study will also provide a foundation for the five-year business plan that FEDLINK staff and member representatives will be developing, again with the help of Abacus consultants, over the next six months.
| Major Benefits Cited by FEDLINK Vendors | Database Vendors(5) | Serials Vendor | Book Vendor |
| Centralized Procurement for Client | |||
| Centralized Accounting Reduces Accounts Receivable Expense Cost Savings: |
X | X See Note 1 | X See Note 2 |
| Prompt Payment Reduces Interest Costs Cost Savings: |
X See Note 3 | X | X |
| Close Association with FEDLINK Information Community | |||
| Access to FEDLINK Service Listings | |||
| Flexible Pricing Options Offered | |||
| Single Government Rate Established Cost Savings: |
X See Note 4 | ||
| Ability to Develop "Market Niche" with FEDLINK Clients | |||
| Low Rate of Invoice Write-Offs | |||
| Ability to Collect Prior Year Sales | X | ||
| Opportunity for Participation in FEDLINK Outreach and Training Activities | X | ||
| Expert Evaluation of Vendor Proposals | |||
| Increased Market Intelligence | |||
| Ability to Influence Industry Standards | X | ||
| Ability to Quickly Transmit New Product Information |
X See Note 5 | ||
| Ability to Participate in Transition to New Media |
Note 1: The estimated cost savings to one serials vendor due to centralized accounting services is .25 FTE credit collection/accounts receivable staff or approximately $8,000 per year.
Note 2: The estimated cost savings to one book vendor due to centralized accounting services is1.0 FTE or approximately $35,000 per year.
Note 3: The estimated cost savings to database vendors due to prompt payment is 1% to 3% of the total FEDLINK sales base.
Note 4: The estimated cost savings to database vendors due to a single government rate is .5FTE Government Sales Pricing Analyst or approximately $17,500 per year.
Note 5: The estimated benefit to one book vendor due to the ability to quickly transmit new product information is increased sales of approximately 5% of the total FEDLINK sales base.
Members have a new option when registering for FEDLINK OCLC or Internet classes. In addition to phone and fax, class registration requests can now be submitted online, through an electronic registration form in the FLICC/FEDLINK Web site. Members fill out the form with information about themselves, their agency, the course requested, and the desired payment option. The request is then sent to FEDLINK Network Operations (FNO), where a staff member checks the information and sends a confirmation by email indicating whether space is available, or provides alternate dates if the class is full.
For more information, contact FNO at:
(202) 707-4848 (voice)
(202) 707-4873 (fax)
FLICCFNO@LOC.GOV (email)
This publication is now available to members from the Federal Library and Information Center Committee.
As directed by the FLICC Executive Board, the FLICC Personnel Working Group (PWG) collaborated with the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in revising both the 1966 Federal Librarian Series position classification standards and the corresponding 1968 qualification standards with emphasis on the establishment of the master's degree in library science (or its equivalent) as the minimum requirement for entry level positions.
The background paper written by the PWG to justify the standards is now available to the membership.
Although this paper was written in 1993 and does not represent new technological and other advancements which have occurred since then, FLICC hopes that it will provide useful information for you in working with your own agencies on personnel matters.
Mark Your Calendar
| FLICC Orientations to National Libraries and Information Centers Series | ||
|---|---|---|
| Place | Date | Time |
| National Library of Medicine | Nov. 6, 1996 | 9:30 a.m. |
| National Agricultural Library | Dec. 12, 1996 | 1:00 p.m. |
| Government Printing Office | Jan. 15, 1997 | 10:00 a.m. |
| National Archives (Downtown) | March 19, 1997 | 10:15 a.m. |
| National Archives (College Park) | April 9, 1997 | 9:30 a.m. |
| National Library of Education | May 5, 1997 | 1:00 p.m. |
| Defense Technical Information Center | June 18, 1997 | 9:30 a.m. |
| National Technical Information Service | July 10, 1997 | 9:30 a.m. |
| Smithsonain Institution Libraries | Sept. 17, 1997 | 9:00 a.m. | For more information, call the FLICC office at (202) 707-4800. |
FEDLINK Services
OCLC Support
Internet Training
FLICC/FEDLINK Publications
Federal Library News
FEDLINK Technical Notes is published by the Federal Library and Information Center Committee.
Send suggestions of areas for FLICC attention or for inclusion in FEDLINK Technical Notes to:
FEDLINK Technical Notes
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20540-4935
FLICC/FEDLINK:
Phone (202) 707-4800
Fax (202) 707-4818
FEDLINK Fiscal Operations:
Phone (202) 707-4900
Fax (202) 707-4999
Executive Director: Susan Tarr
Writer/Editor: Jessica Clark
Editorial Assistant: Mitchell Harrison
FLICC was established in 1965 (as the Federal Library Committee) by the Library of Congress and the Bureau of the Budget for the purpose of concentrating the intellectual resources of the federal library and related information community. FLICC's goals are: To achieve better utilization of library and information center resources and facilities; to provide more effective planning, development, and operation of federal libraries and information centers; to promote an optimum exchange of experience, skill, and resources; to promote more effective service to the nation at large and to foster relevant educational opportunities.
Return to FLICC Home Page
Go to: Library of Congress Home Page
Library of Congress