CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee) s1

CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee) Meeting 2002/1 Melbourne Convention Centre Tuesday 5 February 2002 9am to 12 noon

DRAFT Minutes

1. Attendance. Evelyn Woodberry (Chair),, Fides Lawton, Liz Curach, Jocelyn Priddey, Steve Cramond, Diane Costello (CAUL), Philip Kent (CSIRO) Tony Millett (CONZUL). Eve Woodberry welcomed new representatives of the Datasets Coordinators, Jocelyn Priddey and Steve Cramond, who are attending their first meeting. 2. Minutes of the previous meeting 13 December 2001, Sydney. It was noted that the Think Tank topic will be “intra-consortium” cost models. 3. Business Arising from the Previous Meeting. a) Mirror sites for library databases. Philip Kent, Nick Tate (UQ, CAUDIT) and Fides Lawton agreed to write a paper outline the issues relating to the mirroring of library databases in Australia. (Action: PK, FL, NT) 4. CEIRC Terms of Reference & Operations. The current version is available at http://www.caul.edu.au/ datasets/ceirctor.htm Eve Woodberry indicated that her review of the Terms of Reference 12 months before had convinced her that the committee was meeting its terms very well. In September, CAUL agreed that the terms be reviewed on a more formal basis. The committee discussed the terms with respect to: whether the current terms were appropriate for the committee vis a vis the CAUL Office; whether the committee should be pro-active rather than reactive; whether the committee should be more involved with licences; whether the committee should be involved in authentication; whether the terms should be more prescriptive eg collection of electronic statistics, deemed lists, model licences, archiving, etc; whether a description of the activities of the CAUL Office should be included; whether “advice to CAUL on the strategic plan” should have more prominence; whether “(1) Coordinate initial evaluation of electronic information resources” is still relevant to the committee’s role; whether the focus of the committee is on “purchasing” or should be broadened to “access”; whether the terms should refer to collaboration with CAUDIT; whether to refer to CEIRC’s role according to CAUL’s strategic plan ie “maximising purchasing power”; whether CSIRO and CONZUL should be mentioned; It was noted that there are several ways in which a product is identified and offered to members: a member encourages a vendor to approach CAUL; a member asks CAUL to approach a vendor; a vendor approaches the CAUL Office; a vendor approaches the CEIRC committee; the CAUL Office identifies products of potential interest. Most offers are handled directly between the CAUL Office and members, seeking expressions of interest, referring questions to the vendor, etc. Some offers are referred to the committee for advice, particularly with respect to licences. It was agreed that Steve Cramond and Liz Curach would make the first attempt at redrafting the terms. (Action: SC, LC) The membership of the committee was not discussed.

CEIRC Meeting 2002/1 – 5 February 2002 – Melbourne – Minutes. 1 5. CEIRC Membership. a) Committee membership. b) External Participants. 6. National Site Licence. Eve Woodberry reported that DEST had not approved any funds to support the purchase of Web of Science & Current Contents for the sector. Universities are expected to fund all costs, including back-file costs. 7. Licences. Steve Cramond inquired whether educational licences which precluded information being used “commercially” applied to university staff using information learned from these databases in their consultancy work. Members suggested that this was not the intention of such clauses. a) Electronic Monographs. b) Electronic-only Subscriptions. It was decided to drop this item from future agendas, as it was no longer an issue of concern. (Action: DC) c) Access to full-text of subscribed material following cancellation of the subscription. Tony Millett’s survey of database providers was considered at the CEIRC meeting of 27 June 2001. The survey will be made available on the CAUL web site. (Action: DC) d) Survey of database licence agreement authorisations. Tony Millett has prepared a table of licence agreements showing briefly their statements on remote users, authorised clients, “walk-ins”, inclusion in print and electronic course packs and electronic closed reserve collections, supply on Interloan in print and electronic format. Some problems with this table, as identified by Tony, include: i) Many license agreements are complex, difficult to interpret and often unclear. The list represents Tony’s interpretations, and because compiled over several months it may not have been entirely consistent. Others may interpret the license agreements differently. It was noted that there is a disclaimer on each page. ii) License agreements are constantly changing. These may not always have been the most recent agreement. iii) Individual libraries may have license agreements specific to them, which are different to the agreements identified. iv) It hasn’t been possible to find license agreements for some major database suppliers that Waikato does not currently subscribe to. v) The table is time-consuming to compile and keep up-to-date. Tony was commended on the excellence of the work. It was agreed to make the table available on the CAUL web site, downloadable as an Excel file. It was suggested that Datasets Coordinators be asked if others were compiling similar databases, and whether anyone would like to volunteer to keep it up-to-date. (Action: DC) e) Digital Issues Seminar. Eve Woodberry has been invited to present, or nominate someone else to present, a session on “The new licensing environment: a librarian’s perspective”. The seminar is being held at the National Library, 25 March 2002 from 8:30 to 4:00 8. Major Database Proposals. a) Lexis Nexis. Diane Costello advised that although IP-authentication was not technically available right now, Lexis Nexis has a procedure which effectively mimics IP-authentication and precludes the need for password access. This is available for all institutions, irrespective of their subscription to either or both segments of the database. 9. Intra-Consortium Cost Models. This item was not specifically discussed, although it was part of the discussion regarding the Think Tank (see item 10)

CEIRC Meeting 2002/1 – 5 February 2002 – Melbourne – Minutes. 2 10. CEIRC-Industry Think Tank. The meeting on publishers’ pricing models and intra- consortium cost-sharing models will be held in Sydney alongside ALIA2002. A dinner will be held 22 May and the meeting 23 May. Liz Curach, Fides Lawton and Steve Cramond are designing the program, in consultation with Philip Kent. It was noted that CAUL has asked for more places to be made available for interested CAUL members who are not on either the CEIRC or Executive committees. It was affirmed that the number of participants needs to be limited to facilitate discussion. It was noted that the meeting room layout and quality can either contribute to or detract from the success of the discussion. It was confirmed that no more than two representatives, including no more than one local representative, from each company will be invited. It was agreed that the ALIA2002 committee be approached to identify companies which are exhibiting at the conference. (Action: LC) The focus of the meeting will be on future strategies and the evolution of their cost models, etc not on products. Speakers will be asked to address the meeting briefly, to stimulate discussion and raise questions. Several issues will be referred to the CAUL Executive for a decision, including the participation of external organisations such as the AVCC and DEST. (Action: EW) 11. Involvement of Datasets Coordinators & CEIRC Working Groups. Members should identify work which could appropriately be handled by a specially tasked working group. This is a standing item on the agenda. 12. CEIRC Position Papers. a) Electronic archiving. Eve Woodberry, conjunction with Vic Elliott, is drafting a response to the paper by Christine Maher et al, discussed at the December meeting of CEIRC. (Action: EW, VE) 13. Relationships with other organisations. i) ICOLC. Portland, Oregon in April 2002; Nashville, Tennessee in September 2002. 14. Recommendations to CAUL on issues for the strategic plan. This is a standing item on the agenda. 15. Communication with CAUL. Calls for agenda items from CAUL members and Datasets Coordinators will be circulated in advance of each meeting. Local Datasets Coordinators will be invited to meet the committee wherever feasible. 16. Next Meeting. Wednesday 20 March 2002, Sydney at a time to be confirmed. (Action: DC) The meeting concluded at 12 noon. dmc020227/ceirc20021.min.doc/020228/020311

CEIRC Meeting 2002/1 – 5 February 2002 – Melbourne – Minutes. 3