integrating electronic publishing into the concepts and practices of collection development:...

Library Acquisitions: Practice d; Theory, Vol. 14, pp. 327-339, 1990 0364~6408/9Q $3.00 + .GQ Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

INTEGRATING ELECTRONIC P~RLrSH~N~ INTO THE ~UNCEPTS AND PRACTICES OF COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

INTEGRATING ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING INTO THE CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES OF

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT

Selected Highlights of the Institute on Collection Development for the Electronic Library, Cornell University,

April 29-May 2, 1990

REBECCA A. GUAPPONE*

Library Acquisitions: Practice I& Theory Reporter

356 l/2 Cherry Street

Kent, OH 44240

BETH J. SHAPIRO

Deputy Director

University Libraries

Michigan State University

SCOTT R. BULLARD

Editor-in-Chief

Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory

Editorial Infroduction - Scott R. Builard, Editor-in-Chief, Library Acquisifions: Practice & Theory.

On July 8, 1988, the American Library Association sponsored a New Orleans preconference entitled “Collection Development in the Electronic Age,” selected papers and complemen-

*Editor’s Note: Rebecca A. Guappone served as LAPT’s primary reporter (requests for reprints should be addressed

to Ms. Guappone). The individual reports prefaced by a single asterisk were prepared by her, while those prefaced

by a double asterisk were prepared by Beth J. Shapiro. Scott R. Bullard wrote the introduction and coordinated the overall publication.

327

328 R. A. GUAPPUNE, B. 3. SHAPIRO, and S. R. BUtLARD

tary reports of which appeared in LAPT’s Volume 13, Number 3 (1989). Two of the planners of that very well-received preconference were Jan Kennedy Olsen and Sam Demas, of the Mann Library at Corneli University.

Since then, more and more Iibrarians have-to quote a March 6, 1990 promotional letter from Demas - either continued or started “grappling with the challenge of integrating the selection of electronic publications into their collection development programs.” So, Olsen and Demas, on behalf of the Mann Library, joined forces with the Faxon Institute for Advanced Studies in Scholarly and Scientific Information to sponsor another conference addressing that question.

The meeting was heId April 29-May 2, 1990 at the Statler Inn and Conference Center on the Cornell University campus, and attracted attendees from all over the United States and Canada.

LAPT was represented by first-time reporter Becky Guappone, who was fortunate enough to enlist the assistance of long-time collection manager Beth Shapiro, Deputy Director of the Michigan State University Libraries. Moreover, as with the New Orleans preconference, a number of the presenters elected to submit their work for inclusion in these pages, and their presentations are included in their entirety following this conference report. Some others elected to publish elsewhere or not at all.

Thus, that which follows is neither entirely proceedings nor reportage, but rather a hybrid of the two. Still, since UCLA’s Bob Hayes summarized the conference as “a program that . . . will be regarded, in future years, as a miIestone event,” I feel confident that you wilf find LAPT”s coverage of interest and value.

The challenge of integrating electronic publishing into the concepts and practices of collection development is not going to just go away; if anything, that challenge is going to become even greater with time, and so acquisitions librarians and collection managers can only hope that there will continue to be informative conferences like this one-possibly held on an an- nuat basis in order to guarantee librarians a modicum of current awareness.

*Keynote Address- Robert Kahn, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Washing- ton, DC.

Kahn began by noting that, even though someone once cautioned him never to address a group of professionals if one were not in their particular profession, he nonetheless planned to provide his perspective on ‘libraries, their importance, and their future.

He views libraries as “institutes of learning,” of which the creating and imparting of knowledge are two primary qualifying criteria. In the past, many have viewed libraries as little more than places with books on shelves, but in the future, said Kahn, we will most probably see a “national digital library” .instead.

“Electronics has changed the (informational) landscape. r” be said. We no longer need to ob- tain our information in book form; rather, in digital form, it can be accessed both easily and simult~eously, and copies can be made and distributed with faciiity. Clearly, networking will be integral to that future environment.

A number of social issues will relate directly to the new informational landscape, including but not restricted to, questions of usage and affordability, of copyright infringement, and of uncomplicated accessibility for the user.

Kahn then described a National Knowfedge Bank his corporation was developing in which various scientific and engineering data wiil be instantaneously accessible, and then he specu- lated on how society could pay for such knowledge bank systems. Apparently, the bottom- line hinges on whether we will be able to create our digital library in such a way that large

Integrating Electronic Publishing 329

numbers of people will be able to easily use and willingly subsidize it, thus averting the need for government funding (and all the concomitant issues that would occasion!).

Soon, we all- libraries, vendors, publishers, advertisers, and industry- will be linked via a “global library,” a prospect at once exciting and a bit daunting, for in order for a global library to become a reality, a myriad protocols and standards must be developed and agreed upon. Obviously, we shall have to utilize all our powers of coordination and leadership.

In conclusion, Kahn discussed what the library of the future ought to be. He sees it as a “center of creative activity”: no longer simply a place to locate information, but rather a place where one can go to be creative and to be challenged to think creatively.

~~eve~o~~n~ f&e Electronic Library- Jan Kennedy Olsen, Director, Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Olsen set the stage by expl~ning that the conference would address those issues character- izing the transition from one paradigm to another. She defined ~ff~u~~g~ as a model or set of problem fields, theories, practices, or standards accepted as a solution.

Paradigms are “time-honored theories or practices,” she said, and professional librarians are presently rooted in one fundamental paradigm, namely, connecting members of society to ideas within the confines of a library building, But that old paradigm, though based on es- tablished and agreed-upon practices and theories, is being challenged by the emerging electronic library. The advent of computers and telecommunications has created the need for a new paradigm, said Olsen, for “we cannot (expect to) solve a new puzzle with an old solution.”

The new paradigm will be centered, not on the library edifice, but rather on the scholar at his workstation, whether that be in his office, laboratory, or home. The types of information available via electronic formats to such scholarly workstations can be grouped into the following broad categories:

1. bibliographic- Databases to enable scholars to access catalogs and union catalogs as well as indexes and abstracts.

2. Full Text-Full text files available both structured and formatted as well as with a free text capability.

3. Numeric Data -To name but one example, census figures are presently available online. In time, scholars will be able to access numeric data on almost any topic.

4. Numeric/Textual Data, and 5. A great many others, including but certainly not limited to, maps, collections of

photographs, reproductions of artworks, and even structures depicted in three-dimen- sional form.

Access to any of those formats should not be of any concern to the user, whether he be working within the library or at a remote station, said Olsen, for it is assumed that (1) libraries will not abandon their old paradigm entirely, that is, they will still have as their primary rai- son d’etre the connecting of the scholar to the information he seeks, albeit no longer necessarily within the traditional confines of the library. Thus, (2) libraries will continue to share their resources, though increasingly via electronic means, (3) they will be able to greatly expand their storage capacity, thanks to electronic formats, and (4) the scholarly workstation, and not the monolithic library, will become the locus for access to information, Those four underlying assumptions, said Olsen, must be so “seamlessly incorporated” into the unique role of the library of the future that scholars will be oblivious to the enormous changes wrought by our switching of professions paradigms.

330 R. A. GUAPPONE, B. J. SHAPIRO,’ and S. R. BULLARD

Still, we must not expect such changes to occur overnight: it will be many years before scholars can rely totally on the electronic library for access to information; thus, for quite a while, the print format will continue to prove invaluable. However, like libraries, publishers need to be aware of the sweeping implications posed by electronic accessibility to information* For one thing, by operating under the old paradigm, publishers were the ones who determined how much information was available, and in what form, while in the future, scholars will be able to structure their own data according to the need of the moment.

In conclusion, said Olsen, there are at least five major challenges which must be addressed in order for the new paradigm to become a reality:

1. devising and providing electronic indexing schemes which will enable users to determine what is available both locally and remotely via networks,

2. establishing “friendly, helpful, and integrated” interfaces between the user and any number of diverse electronic resources,

3. endeavoring to insure all users equitable access to electronic information, which obviously entails

4. making certain that enough workstations and supporting hardware are available to accommodate the increased demand, as well as

5. elevating society’s overall level of computer literacy.

*Super Book - The Enhanced Interface- Dennis Egan, Cognitive Science Research Group, Bellcore, Morristown, NJ.

Egan began his presentation by providing some background on his firm’s work in developing an electronic book called Super Book. It is a hypertext, or document manipulation system, developed for Bellcore’s owner companies.

Even though Super Book was not developed specifically for the electronic library, said Egan, it would be generally applicable, and he hoped that by discussing his experiences with Super Book, he might help librarians attempting to “understand and harness the power of electronic media to aid scholars in sciences and the humanities.”

He focused his presentation on three primary areas: (1) establishing some idea of the moti- vations behind and approaches to Super Book, (2) providing a simulation of what it is like to actually use it, and (3) offering empirical results of the testing done on its effectiveness, comparing Super Book to the same text in print form.

The motivation for Super Book stemmed from the usability problems Bellcore’s owner companies had with printed documents: (1) finding information in a timely fashion, (2) acquir- ing information out of sequence, and (3) updating material, integrating new inserts, distributing, and archiving.

Thus, Bellcore’s Cognitive Science Research Group-comprised of computer scientists and psychologists-elected, as usual, said Egan, to “take the user’s point of view, measure user performance, and then design an interface on the basis of what (they) found out.”

Several research projects of the past ten years were amalgamated into Super Book because they related directly to the usability problems Bellcore had identified. For example, one project known either as Verbal Disagreement or a Statistical Semantics indicated that indexing proved exceedingly difficult because getting people to refer to a given object by the same name was almost “impossible,” said Egan, exaggerating slightly to make his point; in fact, he said, it had been determined that the chances of agreement were only one in ten, and that was at the very heart of the finding problem.

Thus, his research group realized that they needed to create for Super Book a “rich index,”


one which included many different pointers to the same object. Super Book has full-text indexing capability, which means that any word in a given paragraph can be used as an index point to refer back to that paragraph; and, users are also allowed to establish their own syn-

onyms by which to search. Another research project amalgamated into Super Book indicated that users need a “fish-

eye view” to best perceive complicated information structures, that is, they need to be able to focus upon the center of the display, yet without losing the vital context-preserving information which exists on the periphery of their vision. Or, to mix metaphors, they must not lose sight of the forest for the trees! The first complaint most users have with electronic documents, said Egan, is that without the spatial clues characteristic to print formats, users “get lost” too easily. Taking a fish-eye view better preserves user orientation within documents.

The next segment of Egan’s presentation was a simulation of what it was like to retrieve data in Super Book. During this segment, Egan demonstrated simultaneously the four main win- dows through which users would see information: (1) word look-up utilizing rich indexing, which allows access by combinations of words, word stems, and/or synonyms-the user is told the frequency of his access word, and that frequency is posted next to the appropriate topics in a (2) dynamic table of contents, which also provides a fish-eye view by which the user can behold not just (3) the specific text page but also peripherally related ones as well, and (4) a command window. Moreover, Super Book can handle a variety of graphics and pictorial data.

About three years ago, Egan and his colleagues decided that they needed to evaluate “this (seemingly) beautiful thing” they called Super Book. They wanted to see just how well their brainchild stacked up against a printed format of the same text. At first, their findings were somewhat disheartening: a test group found Super Book’s Version 0 only slightly more accurate than its print counterpart, and slower overall!

As a result of their findings, they went back to their drawing board and put Version 1 into a different computer language, which significantly increased response time-at least to the ex- tent that Version 1 was then equally as fast to use as print, while continuing to be more accurate.

Still more reworking resulted in a 25% improvement in Super Book’s accuracy and speed, and in time, the Bellcore staff were able to agree that they had indeed devised “a beautiful thing.” Egan concluded by noting that the “way information looks” in Super Book- highlighted and given directly at the top of the page-enables the user to “zoom in on” the specific and related facts he requires. Clearly, such electronic books will greatly improve access to information for all scholars.

Changing Patterns of Scholarly Communication: Implications for Libraries This panel discussion featured presentations by Rowland Brown, former CEO of OCLC,

Inc.; Morris Glicksman, Provost of Brown University; and Peter Graham, of Rutgers Uni- versity. The presentations of Brown and Glicksman follow the conference report in their entirety.

*Selection Criteria for Electronic Formats (CD-ROM, computer files, online resources, and micro software) and Guidelines for Selecting Among Formats-Kathy Chiang, Computer Data Librarian, Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Chiang’s workshop dealt not with the problem, but rather with what she termed the “challenge,” of selecting electronic formats for the academic library. She began by discussing what she viewed as institutional goals, including:

332 R. A. GUAPPONE, B. J. SHAPIRO, and S. R. BULLARD

1. edu~ation~/instructional responsibilities, that is, learning how information is retrieved, as well as learning the latest technology available for information retrieval,

2. research programs which need to retrieve the latest, most comprehensive, and most relevant information, and

3. external responsibilities, to the immediate community and beyond.

Chiang then noted the possible formats of electronic records, including but by no means restricted to: floppy disks, magnetic tapes and cartridges, and optica disks. Those formats can accommodate a wide variety of electronic records, such as:

I. applications software, for example, word processing, statistical packages, and database management,

2. bibliographic, for example, subject (ERIC) and publisher (NTIS), 3. numeric/reference, for example, Food consumption surveys and Censuses of population, 4. text, like the Harvard Business Review and encyclopedias, and 5. images, for example, soil maps.

Chiang indicated that two basic questions need to be answered when selecting among formats: How much money do I have? and, What do 1 want to offer my patrons in terms of content?

At least six primary selection criteria must be considered:

1. What facilities are available? This includes space considerations, mainframe/centraI system capacity, micros, CD-ROMs, software for a number of purposes, existing or needed networking arrangements, relations with the computer center (or other sources of technical/systems support), and support from other departments.

2. What will be the start-up and maintenance costs? This includes the purchase of those facilities noted immediately above, updating databases (acceptable frequency and ease of updating), whether documentation is available from the publisher or will have to be created in-house, whether staff training is provided by the publisher or will have to be commissioned from an external source, and the whole question of leasing vs. ownership.

3. What services will be possible? This includes the number of simultaneous users to be served, hours available, convenience of access (locations available), remote access (to offices and dormitories on campus), searching software (ease of use and simplicity of interface), efficiency of access to both librarians and users, circulation of items, medi- ated (quick reference, searches, instructions vs. nonmediated access, networking, document demands generated from bibIiographic file searches, backfile availability, and archiving functions.

4. What staff skills are available for technical and reference support? This includes skills transferable from other existing expertise, the overall level of computer literacy (how much training will staff require in order to incorporate the material into their daily routine?), service levels not only to provide access but also to download files and create interfaces if necessary, whether instruction will be needed for patrons to use the system or to understand its underlying principles, skills to support or troubleshoot remote use, system staff available, and programming required.

5. What is the content of the material and how does it relate to the mission of the supporting institution? This inchrdes considerations of whether the content of the different formats is identical, whether the material will support the instructional goals


of the institution, whether faculty support can be garnered, whether updates will be required, what percentage of the titles indexed are held by the library (for bibliographic files), how large is the audience, what programs wili be served, and whether the material will be appropriate as a tool for staff development (for example, will the CDs allow simulated online practice?).

6. What are some miscellaneous other considerations? These included other formats planned for the material in the near future and the ease with which use can be monitored for continuing evaluation, among others.

Having given the workshop attendees a great deal to think about, Chiang then divided them into working groups based on whether their libraries were centralized or decentralized, had general or in-depth collections, and supported only undergraduate or graduate programs as well. The working groups were asked to apply the selection criteria Chiang had detailed to the various formats available for the two titles, Psychological Abstracts/PsycZnfo and County and City Databook (Figures 1 and 2).

After the working groups had deliberated for approximately one half-hour, they reconvened to report their decisions to the overall assemblage and, not at all surprisingly, their choices varied as widely as the size and type of the institutions they represented.

Indeed, the primary point of consensus appeared to be that Kathy Chiang had provided an excellent simulation exercise for learning how to apply selection criteria to similar information in different formats!

**Legal and Ethical Issues: Negotiating Equitable Access to Information -Brian Kahin, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Kahin reviewed relevant portions of the Copyright Act of 1974. Ownership is not the same as authorship of a work, and this has significant implications for interpretations of copyrights. Ownership of an item provides certain exclusive rights: reproduction, adaptation, distribution, public performance, and public display. It is impo~~t to know whether one owns or is merely leasing a product, for if a product is leased, one’s rights-to distribute, perform, display, et al. -are altered.

**Legal and Ethical Issues: Negotiating Equitable Access to Znformation -Peggy Seiden, Head Librarian, Blissell Library, New Kensington, PA.

Computers introduce new ethical problems relating to piracy and intellectual property theft, privacy, security, equity of access, the shortcomings of computers as decision-makers, and the social consequences of automation.

Of particular importance to libraries are issues relating to the privacy and security of campus information systems, integrity of the data provided and of the collection, preservation of electronic information, and equity (interinstitutional, intrainstitutional, and personal). Indeed, concerns relating to equity in access to information are the most troublesome and must be addressed by librarians, said Seiden.

She then indicated that librarians must deal with the following issues when negotiating con- tracts with vendors/publishers of electronic information: pricing strategies, for example, per copy, quantity discounts, network or site licenses; who has access-it is crucial to define one’s user community; vendor support; and, system add-ons.

Mounting Files Locally vs. Providing Remote Access This workshop featured presentations by Howard Curtis, of Cornell University; Emily Gal-

lup Fayen, Director of Information Systems at the University of Pennsylvania’s Van Pelt Li-


I Format Facilities

1 aper

Remote online -pay per use -unlimited use

Local online

CD single station c networked

floppy disks

Shelving

Microcomputer Modem Telephone line Account with database vendor

Mainframe Disk storage Search software Network or telephone system

Microcomputer CD reader

Local area network

Microcomputer Statistical, or data manipulation software

Mainframe Software to extract data

costs

$36.00

No direct equivalen& some numbers available on Donnelly ($6O/hr, .25- lO.GQ/record) or CBN- DATA ($360~)

$175 +Software cost

no direct equivalent, has some of the data: $125

8 high density disks, $144

$175

Skills

Reading

Online searching (including use of communications software) Basic microcomputer skills

Database maintenance and troubleshooting Online searching (including use of communications software) Basic microcomputers

CD software Online searching Basic microcomputers

Basic microcomputers Software expertise: statistical or data extractior

Mainframe transactions Data extraction

Figure 1. Background Sheet: Psychological Abstracts/PsychInfo.

brary; and Brian Sweet, of BIOSIS. Fayen’s presentation follows the conference report in its entirety.

*Mounting Files Locally vs. Providing Remote Access-Howard Curtis, Head of Informa- tion Technology Section, Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.


Format

?aper

kmote online

-pay per use -unlimited use

Local online

m -single station -networked

floppy disks

Facilities

Shelving

Mi~omputer Modem Telephone line Account with database vendor

Mainframe Disk storage Search software Network or telephone system

Microcomputer CDxWder

Local area network

Mainframe Software to extract data

6.5.5-651hour * .30-.45/citafion

??$$$

rape: Software %50,ooo, $10,00@ maintenance Storage $35,000 !&ir&ame ?$$$

WOO (2nd copy $3,000) E3,400 (print subscribers. 2nd copy $2.555) Multiuserz s6,ooo print SUbXCbers SS,loo

n/a

ss,oowyear + s /year of citations

Skills

Reading

&line searching (~clu~ng lse of communications ;oftware) Basic micmcomputers

Database maintenance and roubleshooting Mine searching (including use of communications !Oftwam) Basic microcomputers

CD software Online searching Basic microcomputers

Mainframe trmsactiims Data extriwion

Figure 2. Background Sheet: County and City Databook.

In this workshop, Curtis outlined various alternatives for electronic access. These included:

1. Database Vendor Systems, 2. CD-ROMs, and 3. Local Mounting on an Institutional Mainframe, accessible via a campus network.

None of these should be considered necessarily preferable to the others, he hastened to note; rather, they should all be viewed as part of an overall “computing environment” based upon

336 R. A. CUAPPONE, B. J. SHAPIRO, and S. R. DULLARD

the scholar at his or her microcomputer workstation. Like many other presenters and workshop leaders, Curtis lamented the limitations imposed nowadays on librarians and users alike, not so much by technology as by their own antiquated perceptions of the scholarly process.

We need to “extend four) thinking,” he said, so that the library of the future will be con; sidered more than just a number of informational drop-off sites. If we first acknowledge and then assimilate into the scholarly process both files mounted locally (e.g., online catalogs and local area networks, or LANs) as weff us remote access to the plethora of national and international networks available, then the library of the future-like our thinking-can be ex- tended: to laboratories, offices, dormitory rooms, homes, or wherever else “faculty and students do their work.”

This workshop featured presentations by Sam Demas and Ross Atkinson, both of Corneli University. Atkinson’s presentation follows the conference report in its entirety.

**Management Issues/Strategies: Organizing for Integration of Electronic Resources in Libraries-Samuel Demas, Head of Collection Development, Mann Library, Cornell Univer- sity, Ithaca, NY.

First, Demas outlined the organizational structure of the Mann Library (science and agri- culture) at Cornell.

Then, he indicated that the electronic library must provide a “seamless gateway” to all types of information. In order to do so, we must: (I) integrate new technology int.0 our overah mix of resources-our basic mission of linking patrons to the information they want and need has not changed, (2) the selection of electronic resources affects every part of the library organi- zation, with especially significant imphcations for collection development, and thus collection managers must coordinate the introduction of electronic information, and (3) have a system- atic approach by which to mainstream the electronic resources.

At the Mann Library, said Demas, new technologies are initially handled by a task force/collaborative approach until all the kinks can be worked out. Then, all processes are mainstreamed. Task forces and committees can be effective in developing collaborative approaches, he contended.

While Mann continues to operate under a traditional library organizational structure, that is, one divided into technical services, public services, and coilection development, Demas indicated that there is a large and active interdivisional information technology section which reports to the director.

Moreover, in all settings, the director const~tiy reinforces the evolving mission of the Ii- brary in order to begin to devetop a transformation in the thinking patterns of staff; that way, they will be able to adapt more readily to the inevitable changes occasioned by electronic publishing.

The introduction of office automation has broken down many of the old traditional bar- riers at Mann, concluded Demas, as have the recruitment and hiring of new staff unfamiliar with Mann’s time-honored modus uperandi as well as the regular demonstrations of new electronic products.

~~ati~~a~ Networks: 2%eir hpact on Higher Educafion - Fred Weingarten, Office of Tech- noIogy Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.

Weingarten began his presentation by providing some background information on the Of-

integrating Electronic Publishing 337

fice of Technology Assessment, or OTA. It is one of four analytical agencies which works for Congress, carrying out long-term studies of the impacts of technology on various public policy issues. These studies-which often take years to complete-are done for various Congres- sional committees and many times touch upon work issues as well.

The focus of his presentation, continued Weingarten, would be on politics and policy rather than on technology. We are entering an era in which various technologies have started to coalesce, altering the overall social and technological infrastructure and thus all the organi- zations and institutions which comprise that infrastructure.

For the past five years, said Weingarten, he has been grappling with a project known var- iously as the sigh-Performance Computer Initiative, the National Research Network, and (preferably) the National Research and Education Network, or NREN. Even that last is a less than satisfactory name, Weingarten acknowledged, because of the nebulous, evolving nature of words, like network.

Or, what about the word impact in his subtitle? It conveys to him the simplistic view of technology as an “uncontrolled steamroller” which rolls into town and smooths out all the rough spots, when in fact the political processes underlying NREN will have to find a way to accommodate all those differences.

There are three basic approaches to thinking about government policy, he said:

1. the technical approach, in which one strives to draft better, more efficient, economical, rational, and reliable designs,

2. the bureaucratic/managerial approach, which is necessarily constrained by departmental goals, and

3. the political approach, which is not especially concerned with either efficiency or departmental goals, but rather (all too often) with societal “winners and losers.” Congress attempts to minimize adversarial tensions by seeking compromise solutions whenever possible, said Weingarten.

Wide-ranging compromise will be necessary in order for the National Research and Edu- cation Network to gain acceptance, he continued, providing a fascinating 25year history of the productively symbiotic relationship between various government agencies and scientific/technological enterprises.

At present, debate over NREN centers on several seemingly opposable visions of what it should be: the scientific community would like to see a high-capacity network linking all international research institutions to an infinite variety of resources and accessible by every office or home; while the communications community takes a more expansive view, seeking a “broad-band digital network” not restricted solely to the sciences; and, of course industry has its own motives for seeking a bolstering of communications capacity.

Weingarten was quick to note that, while each of these visions may appear clearly delineated from the others, in reality their boundaries are constantly shifting and overlapping. There are points of conflict, to be sure, but there are also many areas of agreement; and, those areas of agreement will serve as the consensual policy underpinnings for NREN.

In order to fully comprehend the debate, one need focus on its three dimensions:

1. the technology involved, 2. those constituents who will benefit, and 3. policy choice levels, including such considerations as: (a) how to promote technological

developments, (b) how to manage and Fund major centers and networks, (c) how to


allocate access. This consideration will ultimately determine the structure of research in our country, (d) rules of special interest to libraries, governing how “it all goes through the pipes,” i.e., such concerns as intellectual property, security, and international data flows, and finally (e) drafting through debate and compromise a comprehensive science policy.

In conclusion, Weingarten indicated that, really, we have “no choice in our society but to build this network (NREN)” dependent on and supportive of the research and development, education, and communications infrastructure of which libraries are certainly an important part. Accordingly, he encouraged all libraries and librarians to take an active role in helping to shape the policies by which NREN will be governed.

*National Networks: Implications for Libraries-Steve Metalitz, Vice President & Counsel, Government Relations, Information Industry Association, Washington, DC.

Speaking from his association’s perspectives, Metalitz noted that over 8.50 companies create, distribute, and use information. At present, the government does not play the predomi- nant role in the information industry, and Metalitz thought that advantageous in at least three ways: (1) the industry is able to evolve naturally instead of being inhibited by governmental strictures, (2) the prevailing 18th- and 19th-century concepts of copyright and other key issues are not yet compatible with 2lst-century information systems, and (3) the private sector is capable of accomplishing a great deal on its own, if permitted to do so.

Major issues which need to be discussed include questions of control, pricing and compen- sation (flat rate vs. licensing), confidentiality, and the government’s role.

Responding specifically to the National Research and Education Network, or NREN, just described by Fred Weingarten, Metalitz expressed the hope that deliberations regarding it be made as open as possible in order to allow input from any number of concerned parties, including the information industry.

Without such diverse input, he concluded, the dream of NREN as a vast informational ex- pressway might end up more resembling a “broken-down highway system!”

*National Networks: Implications for Libraries- Ward Shaw, Executive Director, Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries, Denver, CO.

By way of historical background, Shaw explained that the Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries, or CARL, began networking with six member institutions and then added three clone sites in the mid-1980s. In time, their intrastate expansion proved so successful that CARL were able to expand their network outside Colorado, and today it accommodates 2.5 million transmissions per day, approximately 35-40% of which emanate from sites other than the Denver Public Library.

Shaw noted a number of key networking considerations including, but are by no means restricted to:

1. Providing gateways to and between networks, 2. Helping users navigate through the networks so that they can discern what resources are

available, 3. Determining who pays for different kinds and levels of service, 4. Determining property rights in a shared environment, a healthy cooperation stemming

in part from self-interest, 5. Addressing security and privacy concerns in often “notoriously porous” networks,


6. Considering the impact networking will have on collection development, especially at the research level, and

7. Like Weingarten and Metalitz from their differing perspectives, questioning who will organize our nation’s informational resources.

*Financing Electronic Information Resources - Malcolm Getz, Associate Vice President for Information Services, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.

At Vanderbilt, said Getz, approximately one-third of the library resources are presently acquired in electronic formats because, among other things, “you get a lot for your money.”

He then described four questions which must be addressed in developing an electronic library:

1. why should one select electronic formats? 2. how will the library pay for them? 3. how will the vendors charge for them? and 4. what are the forces shaping the price structure?

The first two questions can be answered by librarians. As to why, one could cite speed, ease of manipulation, the fact that some information is available only in electronic formats, the ever-increasing volume of print materials (storage considerations), and the fact that costs of etectronic formats are decreasing.

As to how libraries wil1 pay, Getz indicated that universities may just have to start spend- ing more on their libraries, even if that means charging more tuition or cutting elsewhere in the institutional budget in order to favor libraries. Moreover, libraries will probably have to start passing more direct charges on to their users; this will not only help subsidize library bud- gets, it will also help make users more aware of the very real costs of providing materials.

At present, said Getz, librarians’ “mindset (remains) in the print world” and is accordingly dichotomized into: those materials which have been acquired (and can be located on the shelves) vs. those which have not been acquired. Electronic formats provide a far “richer ar- ray of choices to meet the information needs of the community.”

Developing the Electronic Library: Agenda for the 1990s Robert Hayes, of the UCLA Graduate School of Library & Information Science, and Jan

OIsen served as Institute Analysts. Hayes’ analysis follows the conference report in its entirety.

integrating electronic publishing into the concepts and practices of collection development:...

Documents