Electronic Collections Committee
AGENDA
Reprioritized July 25, 2002
1. Procedural
1.A. Schedule meeting dates through 12/31/02.
1.B. How can decisions reached outside of meetings (i.e. over email) be consistently and easily reported and recorded?
1.C. Agree upon consistent terminology. Suggested:
· eResources Databases, indexes, full-text, etc. in electronic format (i.e. accessed with a computer). Includes
CD-ROMs.
· Online eResources. eResources accessed via the internet.
· Scopic eResources Wide-spectrum, broad-scope eResources handled by ECC. [scopic: having a wide
scope, comprehensive]
· Especial eResources Subject-specific, narrow-scope eResources handled by CDMC. [especial: not general,
directed toward a specific end]
2. Scope
2.A. Create master list of all subject areas by collection.
2.B. Define criteria for Scopic eResources. Suggestions: Scopic eResources =
· 2 or more subjects?
· 3 or more?
· Multi-collection?
· Undergraduate?
· Cost exceeding $$$?
2.C. If criteria are not defined, suggest recording decision-making process for each scopic eResource for future
reference.
2.D. Does ECC handle especial eResources if they are consortial?
3. Scopic eResources
3.A. Review list of all currently subscribed online eResources, establish which are scopic.
· Is list of CD-ROMs necessary? Will require System reports, many hours of work.
PAGE 2
4. Consortial Participation
4.A. Should existing UHM scopic eResources be reevaluated for consortial proposal?
4.B. Who will do pricing research, coordinate responses?
4.C. How many UH System sites should be required to participate?
4.D. What deadline should be set for UHLC response to UHM proposals?
4.E. How should consortial costs be broken down?
4.F. How should consortial sites be charged?
· There is a large overhead for UHM to chargeback other sites.
5. Dissemination
5.A. What information should be disseminated?
5.B. Who should receive the information?
· Add selector/faculty/other contacts to master list [2A].
5.C. When should it be disseminated?
5.D. How should it be disseminated?
6. Review
6.A. Develop standardized procedures and guidelines for scopic eResource review.
6.A.1. Will all scopic eResources be reviewed? If not, which ones?
6.A.2. How often and when?
6.A.3. Who will be responsible for keeping track of review schedule?
6.B. Shouldn't the review procedures be applied to especial eResources as well?
7. Statistics
7.A. Are statistics to be used for anything other than the review process?
7.B. Will statistics be required for all scopic eResources? What if the vendor does not provide statistics?
7.C. When will statistics be reviewed?
7.D. Who will be responsible for collecting them?
7.E. How will they be distributed to ECC?
7.F. Who/Where/How will they be archived?
7.G. What should ECC be looking for in the statistics?
7.H. Shouldn't the statistics procedures be applied to especial eResources as well?
8. Trials
8.A. Develop standardized procedures and guidelines for trials of potential new scopic eResources.
8.A.1. Are in-person vendor demonstrations always required?
8.A.2. When should trials be scheduled? During a particular part of the year?
8.A.3. How many trials can be handled per year / at once?
8.A.4. Who will set up trials?
8.A.5. Will trials be open to faculty and students?
8.A.6. How will trials be advertised?
8.A.7. How long should trials last?
8.A.8. How will input from trial evaluators be gathered? By whom?
8.A.9. How will trial evaluations be measured?
8.B. Shouldn't the trial procedures be applied to especial eResources as well?
PAGE 3
9. IP Ranges
[I originally had this as #10, but there are NEW IP ranges for the Manoa campus that make this issue a higher priority.]
9.A. ECC should review current list of UHM IP address ranges in use for licensing.
· NOTE: The current list is incorrect. Ranges will change over time.
· Any IP changes will affect all existing licenses.
9.B. Should we stay with the current method of IP-authentication, or find a new solution (e.g. referring URL)?
· If IP ranges are to be corrected in all licenses, ECC must determine the correct list.
9.C. How often should IP ranges be updated in all licenses?
· Average of 2 hours per license to update: gathering information, reviewing existing license and subscription,
contacting vendor, sending/inputting revised ranges, processing written amendments to license,
record-keeping.
· Changes will affect all especial eResources as well.
10. Licensing
10.A. ECC should review the 40+ Sample License Terms, prioritize into must-have, wanted, optional.
10.B. Should license terms be reviewed and negotiated prior to a purchasing decision, or should we assume that all
licenses can be revised to UHM's satisfaction, and review after the decision to purchase?
10.C. Should existing (never negotiated) licenses be reviewed?
10.D. Who will review licenses?
10.E. Who will negotiate?
10.F. Who will have the final decision on negotiated license terms?
10.G. Who will sign licenses?
10.H. How will license information be made available?
10.I. Shouldn't licensing procedures be applied to especial eResources as well?
11. Acquisition
11.A. ECC should design new eResources ledger structure to support statistical reporting for annual reports,
accreditation, etc.
11.B. Suggest policy that unlimited simultaneous users are always preferred. Under what criteria are limited simultaneous
users acceptable?
11.C. Suggest policy that online access is always preferred. Under what criteria is CD-ROM acceptable?
11.D. Suggest policy that IP-authentication is always preferred. Under what criteria is login/password access
acceptable?
· Changes will affect all especial eResources as well.
PAGE 4
12. Providing Access
12.A. Should access points to eResources continue as they currently are?
· Changes will affect all especial eResources as well.
13. User Support
13.A. Should user support for eResources continue as is?