As Paula mentioned, I did convene a conference call recently regarding
the ABA Statistics Questionnaire. First, I want to stress that tackling
the issue of counting electronic resources is very important and a topic
that we hope to successfully address.
Now for the background information regarding the conference call. As a
member of the ABA Law Libraries Committee, I have been asked to serve as
a liaison to the ALL-SIS Statistics Committee and the TS-SIS Serials
Committee (which I also happen to chair this year). The purpose of the
conference call was to determine how best to coordinate our efforts to
recommend changes to the ABA Questionnaire Committee which ultimately
determines which changes will be recommended to the ABA Council of the
Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
The question regarding counting electronic titles was actually removed
from the Questionnaire in 2003. I too would like to see the question
included again, but we are faced with important issues.
For example: How do you define and count electronic resources? Do you
count what your library pays for, or what you have access to on your
campus or through some consortia? Do you count separately cataloged
electronic resources? Why not count those that you have linked from
another bibliographic format?
The AAL-SIS Statistics Committee has already done some work on this
issue, and I will be calling on the TS-SIS Serials Committee to assist
in working through this, and other issues, after we have our second
scheduled conference call later this month. Meanwhile, at the risk of a
flood of email messages, I encourage you to contact me with your
suggestions for both a definition, and methodology for counting
electronic resources.
Btw, information about Project Counter can be found at
http://www.projectcounter.org. AALL has become a member and is seeking
ways to encourage legal information providers of electronic resources to
participate in this effort to provide usage statistics for electronic
resources.
Carol
Paula Tejeda wrote:
> Joe, you may remember that we did discuss this problem during our
> program in San Antonio. You may also remember that one of my last
> comments was that somebody care to change the questions but did not
> notice that there was a set of definitions for the librarians to
> answer the questions .A simple solutions, just drop the phrase about
> excluding electronic titles on the question.
>
> At the end of the meeting there were 3 main recommendations: Revise
> the definitions, address the issue of multiple versions vs. multiple
> titles and work on a definition of electronic resources.
>
> As you know I volunteer to work in a subcommittee with Carol Nicholson
> to make recommendation regarding the statistics. We had a conference
> call last week but most of the time they were discussing other
> questions, including the idea of Project Counter which I still cannot
> understand, and not the problem of the definition. I asked Carol if
> she wanted the representatives from the serials committee to start
> working on a proposed change but she suggested to wait.
>
> I agree with you that this is illogical. Why all of the sudden after
> reporting for so many years the total number of titles represented in
> our catalog, regardless of the physical format we are now asked no to
> include electronic resources. Why should a library like ours with
> emphasis in electronic resources and with a great investment on
> purchasing bibliographic records so our users can have access to the
> resources be penalized and not allow to report all titles in our catalog.
>
> Would you mind if I forward your message to Carol asking her to give
> priority to this issue? I don't know if you remember but I mentioned
> that I had volunteered you in absence to be part of the TS SIS Serials
> Committee group to continue working on this. I also mentioned that
> Norma may also be interested in working with us.
>
>
>
>
> Paula Tejeda
> Associate Law Librarian
> Charleston School of Law
> Sol Blatt, Jr. Library
> 81 Mary Street
> Charleston, SC 29403
> Phone: (843) 377-2152
> Fax: (843) 329-0491
> E-mail: ptejeda@charlestonlaw.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Joseph Hinger" <hingerj@stjohns.edu>
> To: <law-lib@ucdavis.edu>
> Cc: "Linda Ryan" <ryanl@stjohns.edu>, <ptejeda@charlestonlaw.org>,
> <feld@ymail.yu.edu>, <james.mumm@marquette.edu>
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:26:41 -0400
> Subject: ABA questionnaire
>
> In filling out the recent 2004/2005 ABA Annual Questionnaire, I
> was quite surprised at some of the changes in this years
> questions, specifically relating to electronic and web-based
> titles. It appears as if electronic and/or web-based titles or
> products are NOT counted anywhere in the title count, however, we
> ARE permitted to count them as a serial subscription (if they are
> serials) if they are cataloged separately in the librarys catalog.
>
>
>
> These questions and definitions seem a bit illogical to me.
> Historically, at least in my 15 years of working Law Library
> Technical Services, emphasis has been put more and more each year
> on the phrase if you have it cataloged in your system on a
> record, then it can be counted. In many libraries, micro titles
> are NOT cataloged to title level contained within the package,
> therefore, no counting should take place. If libraries do have
> the financial resources and manpower to catalog such packages at
> the title level, and you have records in your system for these
> titles, then by all means they can be counted. Over the past 10
> to 15 years, libraries have spent great financial resources in
> cataloging such packages, as well as purchasing cataloging for
> these packages from outside vendors; thus, allowing us to count
> such titles.
>
>
>
> What makes the online world so different? If I catalog something
> online, whether it is a serial subscription, or a monograph, or a
> map, etc., I should be permitted to count it, as I have a record
> in my catalog.
>
>
>
> The way I see the questionnaire this year, NOT being able to count
> electronic and/or web-based titles or products, whether I have a
> bibliographic/cataloging record for it or not, leads me to believe
> that the overall direction of the questionnaire could change from
> year to year. I personally believe, that in alignment with the
> past questionnaires, that libraries should be able to count
> whatever they want, as long as there is a bibliographic/cataloging
> record for it in your library system. In my library, we have
> spent great amounts of financial resources, time, manpower, etc.,
> to catalog our retrospective microform titles AND our online
> resources, as we tended to believe that if we cataloged it, we
> could count it. Now we are being told differently, regarding
> web-based/electronic titles. I hope to see this disparity
> corrected in future ABA Questionnaires.
>
>
>
> A recommendation that I have is for us to be alerted at least a
> year in advance what the questions will be in the coming year.
> Receiving the questionnaire after the timeframe for which the
> statistics are requested has caused me major manipulation of the
> information in my online system. Had I known what they would be
> asking a year ago, I could have recoded my system to recount
> these statistics well in advance of receiving the questionnaire.
>
>
>
> This past year at the AALL meeting, there were several sessions on
> statistics and counting, that were very interesting and thought
> provoking. Im sure any discussion about this topic would be
> appreciated by the Statistics Committee of AALL, as well as the
> Subcommittee on Serials Statistics, which is a subcommittee of the
> the Serials Committee of the Technical Services SIS.
>
>
>
> I would love to hear others feelings about this ABA Questionnaire
> situation, and how others are approaching these changed questions.
>
>
>
> Joseph Hinger
>
> Associate Librarian for Technical Services
>
>
>
> St. Johns University
>
> Rittenberg Law Library
>
> 8000 Utopia Parkway
>
> Jamaica, NY 11439
>
>
>
>
>
--
Carol Avery Nicholson University of North Carolina
Assistant Director for CB# 3385
Technical Services Chapel Hill, NC 27599
Kathrine R. Everett Law Library Fax: 919/962-2294
Carol_Nicholson@unc.edu <mailto:Carol_Nicholson@unc.edu> Tel: 919/962-1199
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:46:09 PST