ARCHIVED – Minutes of the [2007 Meeting of the] Depository Services Program Library Advisory Committee (DSP-LAC)

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Meeting Dates and Location

August 27-28, 2007
Minto Suites Hotel
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Table of contents

Day 1 (of 2)

A. Introductions and Meeting Business

Christine Leduc welcomed Committee members, and introduced facilitator David McCallum. Members were invited to introduce themselves, their institutions, and where applicable, the association they represent.

The agenda was reviewed, and the minutes from the previous meeting were approved.

Members provided brief updates on activities at their institutions of interest to members and the Program.

During the course of the meeting, various action items and associated accountabilities and deadlines were identified. These items are included as Appendix 1. Time did not permit for the agenda item on the Integration of Government Documents (into larger library collections) to be addressed.

B. Review of Outstanding Action Items from the Previous Meeting

  1. Reporting of "Fugitive" Materials

    Members were urged to inform DSP of federal publications not captured by the Program. Little input was received since the last meeting.

  2. Status of "Position Paper" Expressing Support for the DSP

    Carla Graebner reported that Amanda Wakaruk had drafted this paper. It was agreed to ask CARL/ABRC Executive Director Tim Mark for an update when he attends the meeting on the second day.

  3. Persistent URLs

    Given the centralization of Information Technology services at PWGSC, the DSP is unlikely to make progress on this challenging issue in the short term. Members have expressed a desire for such URLs to ensure stability in linking to electronic government documents.

  4. Usage Statistics

    Members were reminded to provide statistical and/or anecdotal information on the usage of DSP materials on an ongoing basis in order to demonstrate the value of the Program.

  5. "Stamp" to Identify Print Materials Provided by the DSP

    Christine Leduc reported that the stamp had been developed and would be issued to depository libraries by the fall of this year, adding that additional copies of DSP promotional materials are available on request.

It was agreed to address Retention Guidelines, as well as the Cataloguing of Library of Parliament Research Papers on the following day.

C. DSP Update

Christine Leduc provided a detailed reported on DSP activities and future plans (presentation attached), noting that the Program was currently undergoing a formal internal evaluation. Evaluation team member Jacqueline Anawati attended this presentation, and held informal discussions with Committee members over lunch.

Ms. Leduc noted that positive feedback had been received during the course of the DSP Client Satisfaction Survey, even if the response rate was a disappointingly low 18%. She added that the federal Communications Policy is being revised to ensure compliance with DSP requirements on the part of federal departments and agencies.

D. Marketing DSP Materials to Small Businesses

Barbara Malcolm introduced this item, reviewed initiatives at her institution, and called for suggestions.

Discussion highlights:

  • Customize local Web sites with weekly updates, newsletters, links to blogs and other information sources;
  • DSP could create on-line tutorials and other support services;
  • Federal departments are less likely to market free publications;
  • Federal departments are not always aware of what they publish;
  • Issues faced by libraries include:
    • High cost of marketing initiatives;
    • Impermanence of URLs;
    • Lack of awareness of the importance of government documents by clientele;
    • Lack of government documents specialists;
    • Library schools not requiring courses on government documents;
  • Lobby library associations to include government documents as part of core curricula;
  • Need for DSP to provide access to more information about publications (e.g. links to abstracts);
  • Need to identify "niche markets" in general (i.e. beyond small business);
  • Partnering with colleges, school boards and other organizations that support business students and small businesses;
  • Pathfinders and RSS feeds could be useful.

E. "Fugitive" Publications

Gay Lepkey defined fugitive publications in the context of the DSP as materials produced by the Canadian federal government which the DSP should be made aware of and provided in the context of its mandate, but which for a variety of reasons are not.

Given that such materials are not easily identifiable, it is very difficult to determine the extent of the problem. The DSP estimates that somewhere between 40–70% of the publications for which author departments have applied for ISBN's are captured.

Members were tasked with informing the DSP via postings to InfoDep of the fugitive publications they discover, and to inform the libraries they represent to do the same. A permanent notice in the Weekly Checklist will serve as an ongoing reminder to this effect.

F. Presentation: Library and Archives of Canada (LAC)

John Stegenga presented a progress report of how LAC is harvesting and preserving federal government publications and Web sites with a view to creating a Trusted Digital Repository for this material (presentation attached).

G. Presentation: Statistics Canada (STC)

Marie Anderson outlined STC's consultation process for the 2011 Census of Canada (presentation attached).

Day 2 (of 2)

H. Position Paper on the Value of the DSP to Depository Libraries

As agreed at the previous meeting, a brief (i.e. approx. 2 page) document confirming the importance of the depository library system to member institutions and their clientele is to be endorsed by major Canadian library associations, and forwarded by them to appropriate federal officials.

Carla Graebner will provide Amanda Wakaruk's draft to Tim Mark for review and endorsement by CARL/ABRC. This paper will be forwarded no later than Oct. 1, 2007 by CARL/ABRC to ASTED and CLA for their review, endorsement, and forwarding, and to the DSP for distribution to the DSP-LAC membership.

I. DSP – NRC Press MOU

Marc Saint-Pierre stated that the current MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between DSP and the NRC (National Research Council) Press governing access to the latter's electronic journals must be revised to provide greater clarity and to reflect current federal accountability requirements.

Due to technical difficulties on the part of NRC that prevent limiting access to specific Internet sites, the current MOU reflects a funding structure providing extremely broad Web access. It was agreed that restricting access to depository libraries would allow their patrons to continue enjoying on-site and remote access to NRC Press journals.

Carla Graebner and Louise Carpentier agreed to investigate how usage of NRC Press electronic journals might be tracked at their institutions. Carla Graebner agreed to provide instructions for extracting citation data for NRC Press journal articles.

J. Retention Guidelines for DSP Libraries

It was agreed to form a working group to oversee revision of the Guidelines. Gay Lepkey will hold initial discussions on the membership of this group with Dorryce Smelts. Barbara Pilek, and Yvonne and Valerie Footz volunteered to be members. It was agreed that representatives outside of the Committee could be invited to participate as well. A status report will be forwarded to the Committee in January 2008.

Members noted that it is becoming increasingly difficult to store physical materials in their libraries as space fills up over the years with the accumulation of library materials and some spaces are reallocated for other purposes (e.g. computer stations, "information commons" facilities, study rooms, etc.).

K. Cataloguing of Library of Parliament Research Papers

Louise Carpentier thanked DSP for making these publications available through the Program, and noted that certain research papers are not appearing on AMICUS even though they have been listed in the Weekly Checklist. Barbara Pilek will confer with Vivian Larose at the Library of Parliament to ensure that LAC receives these materials for cataloguing.

Gay Lepkey noted that these publications will be added automatically to the DSP's Web index when technical upgrades are complete.

L. Cataloguing of E-Publications

Gay Lepkey summarized recent InfoDep contributions on this topic. He noted that Google harvests DSP records, which may account for the significant increase of downloads from the electronic materials collection. He added that over 50% of these downloads originated from non-depository sites.

Gay Lepkey observed that current mandate of the DSP was developed at a time when print was the dominant medium, and that the characteristics of electronicmaterials present new challenges and opportunities for the Program.

Members applauded DSP's pioneering efforts in the area of cataloguing federal government publications in electronic form.

Liz McKeen reported that LAC was reviewing its policies regarding the cataloguing of government documents in electronic form. These materials are being catalogued, although there is a backlog. For certain classes of materials, consideration is being given to relying more on searching full text and on employing the metadata provided by departments and agencies.

The perceived overlap between DSP and LAC activities regarding the acquisition and cataloguing of federal electronic information was addressed.

Discussion broadened to identify the value-added components of the DSP as a whole. These include:

  • Indexing Canadian federal information;
  • Notifying depository libraries of new federal publications;
  • Providing a "safety net" in the form of an electronic archive of Canadian Federal information;
  • Providing accessibility via the Web to content and indexing information;
  • Relieving libraries of the burden of seeking out materials directly from federal departments and agencies (i.e. cutting across organizational "silos");
  • Seeking out and obtaining access to fugitive materials;
  • Relieving federal departments/agencies of the burden of creating mechanisms to inform libraries of the availability of their publications.

In the context of demonstrating the benefits of the Program, Sylvie Nadeau called on the DSP to estimate the monetary value of the services provided by depository libraries to Canadians. The DSP will undertake a preliminary investigation and report back to the Committee.

M. Renewal of Contracts with the DSP and Depository Libraries

Gay Lepkey announced the DSP's intention to renew its contracts with depository libraries, and circulated highlights of proposed obligations on both parties. For depository libraries, these include a requirement to subscribe to InfoDep, keeping contact information current, and the submission of annual reports.

Some members expressed concern that the present contract language was too vague, while others suggested that specific requirements be included in the form of appendices which could be more easily updated.

A draft version of the contract will be circulated no later than Sept. 20, 2007 for comment by Committee members within 60 days, following which a teleconference would be arranged to address any questions or concerns. The DSP will make the final decision regarding contract language.

Carla Graebner offered to provide documentation on the European Union's depository library contract renewal process to the DSP.

N. Communication and Outreach

Christine Leduc expressed concern that Committee members did not always respond to specific requests for feedback between meetings, and provided little input to the DSP in the form of comments, questions and suggestions. Marc Saint-Pierre asked if the DSP-LAC was the best method of promoting cost-effective communication between the Program and the depository library community, as compared to such initiatives as on-site visits by DSP staff, which have been well received.

Members noted that their advice is provided during the annual meetings, which allow for the sharing of valuable information. It was suggested that in light of the heavy work load of Committee members at their home institutions, the DSP should take a more active role in reminding members of the need for input on various issues and organizing regular conference calls during the year to coordinate follow-up and keep members engaged. DSP was also asked to consider holding a pre-meeting teleconference in order for members to identify agenda topics.

It was suggested that the Committee be constituted in such a way as to provide both "policy" and "operational" perspectives.

It was agreed to retain the Committee in its current form, to expand its "at large" membership to include representation from Canadian colleges, and to hold the next meeting Aug. 25-26 2008 in Ottawa.

O. Action Items

A list of action items from the meeting is attached as Appendix 1.

P. Feedback on Meeting

Members were asked to identify what went well, and what concerns they had with the meeting. These comments are provided as Appendix 2.

Appendix 1

DSP-LAC Meeting of Aug. 27-28, 2007 – Ottawa, Ontario
(Depository Services Program – Library Advisory Committee)

Action Items

Ongoing

  • Action:
    Members to provide DSP with as much data (ideally statistics, but anecdotal information as well) as possible on the use and value to users of materials provided to the depository libraries represented by the DSP-LAC membership.
    Deliverable:
    Input
    Responsibility:
    All members
    Deadline:
    Ongoing
  • Action:
    Members report "fugitive" material (i.e. Government of Canada publications that should have been provided to the DSP, but were not) via InfoDep.
    Deliverable:
    Reports
    Responsibility:
    All members
    Deadline:
    Ongoing

Timing to be determined (TBD)

  • Action:
    Comments on draft minutes of this DSP-LAC meeting.
    Deliverable:
    Comments
    Responsibility:
    All members
    Deadline:
    TBD, but no later than two weeks after distribution to members
  • Action:
    Distribution of final "stamps" identifying DSP materials to all depository libraries.
    Deliverable:
    Stamps distributed
    Responsibility:
    DSP staff
    Deadline:
    TBD, but no later than Fall 2007
  • Action:
    DSP / membership teleconference to review draft contacts, minutes, status of action items and suggested topics for future meetings.
    Deliverable:
    Teleconference
    Responsibility:
    DSP staff
    Deadline:
    TBD
  • Action:
    Suggested topics for the next and future meetings of the DSP-LAC communicated to DSP, possible through a teleconference held shortly before the next meeting.
    Deliverable:
    Topics identified
    Responsibility:
    All members
    Deadline:
    TBD

Items with deadlines (in chronological order)

  • Action:
    European Union (EU) documentation regarding the need for EU depository libraries to re-apply for membership (in context of the drafting of contracts for DSP libraries)
    Deliverable:
    Documentation provided to DSP
    Responsibility:
    Carla Graebner
    Deadline:
    ASAP (no later than Sept. 7, 2007)
  • Action:
    Concordia and Simon Fraser University Libraries will investigate the possibility of deriving usage statistics for NRC Press journals from their respective automated systems.
    Deliverable:
    Report to DSP and the membership
    Responsibility:
    Louise Carpentier, Carla Graebner
    Deadline:
    Sept. 7, 2007
  • Action:
    Simon Fraser University Library will provide instructions for extracting citation data for NRC Press journals.
    Deliverable:
    Report to DSP and the membership
    Responsibility:
    Carla Graebner
    Deadline:
    Sept. 7, 2007
  • Action:
    For input to the current formal evaluation of the DSP Program, members to provide DSP with as much data (ideally statistics, but anecdotal information as well) as possible on the use and value to users of materials provided to the depository libraries represented by the membership.
    Deliverable:
    Data / Information
    Responsibility:
    All members
    Deadline:
    Sept. 14, 2007
  • Action:
    Gay Lepkey and Dorryce Smelts will confer regarding appropriate membership for a working group to study and comment on the revised retention guidelines. Membership will not be restricted to DSP-LAC members.
    Deliverable:
    Status Report
    Responsibility:
    Gay Lepkey / Dorryce Smelts
    Deadline:
    Sept. 14, 2007
  • Action:
    Barbara Pilek will confer with Vivian Larose at the Library of Parliament (LofP) regarding the provision of LofP Research Papers for cataloguing by LAC
    Deliverable:
    Status Report to DSP and membership
    Responsibility:
    Barbara Pilek
    Deadline:
    Sept. 14, 2007
  • Action:
    Draft depository libraries contract to membership for review / comment (silence will be interpreted as assent).
    Deliverable:
    Draft contract to membership
    Responsibility:
    Gay Lepkey
    Deadline:
    Sept. 28, 2007 (or earlier)
  • Action:
    Draft position paper on the high value of the DSP to depository libraries and their clients, for endorsement as soon as possible by ASTED, CARL/ABRC and CLA
    Deliverable:
    Draft paper circulated for comment to DSP, ASTED and CLA
    Responsibility:
    Carla Graebner (assisted by Tim Mark)
    Deadline:
    Oct. 1, 2007
  • Action:
    Public call to library associations for candidates to fill the position of the newly established forth DSP-LAC member "at large" representing college libraries.
    Deliverable:
    Public call through library associations and DSP Web posting
    Responsibility:
    DSP
    Deadline:
    Oct. 1, 2007
  • Action:
    Update on the cataloguing of Library of Parliament Research Papers by the LAC.
    Deliverable:
    Update to InfoDep
    Responsibility:
    Liz McKeen
    Deadline:
    Oct. 12, 2007
  • Action:
    First teleconference of the working group on retention guidelines.
    Deliverable:
    Teleconference
    Responsibility:
    Gay Lepkey, Barbara Pilek
    Deadline:
    Oct. 12, 2007
  • Action:
    Draft minutes of the 2007 meeting to DSP-LAC members, including representation rotation table.
    Deliverable:
    Draft minutes to members
    Responsibility:
    DSP
    Deadline:
    Oct. 26, 2007 (or earlier, depending on availability of draft minutes in both official languages)
  • Action:
    Exploration of the possibility of a study on the costs / investments by DSP partners in providing Canadian government information to their users.
    Deliverable:
    Draft report to members on possibilities / implications / participants
    Responsibility:
    DSP
    Deadline:
    Nov. 1, 2007
  • Action:
    Status report from the working group on retention guidelines.
    Deliverable:
    Status report to DSP-LAC members
    Responsibility:
    Gay Lepkey, Barbara Pilek
    Deadline:
    Jan. 18, 2008
  • Action:
    Next DSP-LAC meeting
    Deliverable:
    Meeting
    Responsibility:
    DSP / all members
    Deadline:
    The next meeting will be held on the following dates:
    • Monday, Aug. 25, 2008 (Day 1 of 2)
    • Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2007 (Day 2 of 2)

Appendix 2

Feedback on Meeting

DSP-LAC Meeting – Aug. 27-28, 2007
(Comments on meeting as a whole gathered at close)

What went well

  • Meeting was well organized and facilitated
  • Venue was convenient (i.e. meeting room in hotel)
  • Good presentations by LAC, STC
  • Tour of Library of Parliament
  • Members learned much from each other
  • Support for Program appreciated by DSP
  • Members took on various tasks; DSP hopes that work on action items goes forward and builds momentum

What concerns

  • Insufficient DSP documentation in French (e.g. Terms of Reference)
  • Need for more structured involvement by members in planning of the agenda
  • Support documents (or at least a summary and/or highlights of issues) for agenda items should be distributed a minimum of one week in advance of meetings
  • Objectives for agenda items (i.e. for decision, discussion only, etc.) should be made clear in advance, be included in documentation provided in advance, and reiterated at the outset of deliberations
  • Meeting room too small
  • Insufficient time for questions following LAC, STC presentations

Originally published: February 18, 2008
Re-published: August 22, 2011