The Virtual Electronic Library (VEL) Project
Report On PHASE I
June 2000
INTRODUCTION
During the 1995-96 academic year, the Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC) which includes the University of Chicago, University
of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University
of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota,
Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State
University, Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
entered into a formal contract with OCLC for the development of
the CIC Virtual Electronic Library (VEL). The culmination of a
three-year research and development project, the VEL seeks to
integrate electronic library resources and end-user services by
offering a single interface to search local, group or external
resources and to allow end-user-initiated interlibrary loan and
document delivery requests within the same interface.
The VEL project provides the technological infrastructure required
for seamless interconnections among a range of online systems
and demonstrates its application through user-initiated interlibrary
loans across the CIC. The project supports the application of
new and emerging technologies to accomplish the goals, and provides
a working environment in which to test and challenge assumptions
about direct end-user access to and use of many libraries. The
project seeks to challenge assumptions about the use of centralized
utilities for managing large numbers of interlibrary transactions,
and in this regard both OCLC and the CIC libraries are stretching
the boundaries of traditional roles. Phase I of the Virtual Electronic
Library Project, which is the focus of this report, is concerned
with the linking of the catalogs of the thirteen university libraries
participating in the project and with providing direct request
by users for materials located through these linked catalogs.
Phase I was funded in part by a United States Department of Education
College Library Technology and Cooperation Grants Program, as
part of the Higher Education Act, Title IIA. The period of this
grant was from October 1993 through September 1996, although certain
refinements and enhancements continued after this grant period
and some are still underway. Phase II, which involves the development
of an independent client-server based Interlibrary Loan/Document
Request (ILL/DR) system, is under development.
I. BACKGROUND
A. What is the CIC?
The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) has as its mission
the promotion of cooperative activities among the Big Ten Universities
plus the University of Chicago. The cooperative activities and
initiatives range from numerous informal efforts that result from
the regular interaction of the academic officers of the CIC institutions
to formal programs and initiatives that are directed toward specific
tasks or projects. The guiding principles of the CIC are:
1) No single institution can or should attempt to be all things
to all people.
2) Inter-institutional cooperation permits educational experimentation
and progress on a scale beyond the capability of any single institution
acting alone.
3) Voluntary cooperation fosters effective, concerted action
while preserving institutional autonomy and diversity.
Within the CIC, nearly 40 different groups of academic administrative
officers ranging from academic personnel administrators to University
Archivists, and Deans and directors of over fifteen Colleges,
Schools, and other academic units meet to share perspectives and
exchange ideas. Nearly fifty committees, panels, and working groups
ranging from Academic Leadership Program Liaisons to the Women's
Advocacy Network, meet to work on issues and programs that are
of interest to these specific groups.
The CIC is supported by membership dues, special assessments,
and grants from foundations and government agencies. In recent
fiscal years grants were received from the GE Fund, the Lilly
endowment, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Pew Charitable
Trusts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National
Science Foundation, and the United States Department of Education.
B. Context of Cooperation within the CIC
The Committee on Institutional Cooperation was established in
1958 by eleven universities (the members of the Big Ten Athletic
Conference plus the University of Chicago) by the chief academic
officers (the Provosts and Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs)
of each of the universities. The CIC represents a unique consortium
of academic institutions, consisting of some of the most prestigious
research institutions in the United States. With over 33,000 full-time
faculty and nearly half a million undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students, they confer approximately 10 percent of
all master's and professional degrees and nearly 17 percent of
all Ph.D. degrees awarded annually in the United States.
Initially, cooperation was focused on ways the CIC institutions
could work together on accessing the various programs found in
each of the institutions. These cooperative efforts have included
programs such as the Traveling Scholar Program, which has permitted
doctoral candidates and honors undergraduates to study on other
CIC campuses while registering and paying tuition at their home
institution. Other CIC cooperative efforts during the past four
decades have been the Summer Research Opportunities, Shared Recruitment
of Minority Students, and Special Programs in Other Countries.
C. Library Cooperation within the CIC
Library cooperation and coordination has been the focus of the
institutions involved in the CIC even prior to the CIC's establishment.
It might be argued that the establishment, by a group of the Big
Ten Universities, of the Midwest Inter-Library Cooperative (MILC),
which was later to become the Center for Research Libraries (CRL),
may have been one of the early efforts that later demonstrated
to the CIC academic officers that cooperation focused on library
resources had a special potential. Seven of the libraries representing
what became the "CIC" schools formed the cooperative
storage facility in 1949 that became the Center for Research Libraries.
The CIC library resources are impressive in their quantity and
quality. The combined collections of the CIC libraries total more
than sixty million volumes of books, 500,000 serials, and a wide
variety of collectively licensed databases and electronic resources.
The libraries in CIC institutions represent a significant national
and international resource in higher education and research.
Cooperation on various automation projects became an increasing
concern of the CIC when emerging technologies created opportunity
for collaboration. At many of the CIC institutions, the automation
of their library catalogs was among the early applications of
computer technology to institutional resources. So when the academic
officers began to consider ways the CIC institutions could cooperate
in automation projects, it is no surprise that library cooperation
came to the top of the list for consideration. The 1963-64 CIC
Annual Report notes that the focus of the discussion among the
academic officers of the CIC Institutions was the "...possible
ways to coordinate the development of automated procedures at
individual institutions in order to overcome costly duplication
and facilitate new patterns of cooperation in the use of library
materials." This was the beginning of what eventually led
to the CIC Virtual Electronic Library (VEL) project.
D. The Determination of the Need for VEL
One of the special strengths of the CIC structure is that there
are often joint meetings among the various administrative groups
and the academic officers. For example, the CIC Library Directors
group may meet jointly with the Chief Academic Officers (the Provosts
and Vice-Chancellors for Academic Affairs). This provides a unique
opportunity to coordinate activities among campus libraries with
the administrative officers to whom the library directors report.
Some of the early cooperative initiatives that were identified
as desirable for the CIC libraries to pursue were cooperative
purchasing and reciprocal borrowing of materials (1965-66 CIC
Annual Report). By 1969, CIC Library Directors and Representatives
identified desirable areas of cooperation as: a) computerization
of library operations, b) compilation of bibliographies of significant
collections, c) the development of a CIC libraries descriptive
handbook, and d) the identification and description of various
data banks found in CIC libraries.
During the 1970s, the CIC had established a number of joint programs
with the Newberry Library in Chicago. These programs included
the special study programs in the history of cartography, the
history of the American Indian, the study of the family and community
history, and seminars in Renaissance historiography and Renaissance
and Medieval paleography.
By the 1980s, the CIC libraries were exploring ways to cope with
the increasing costs of periodical subscriptions, storage, and
binding. They were also exploring ways to cope with the problem
of preservation of resources. Special conferences, sponsored by
the Sloan Foundation, were held in 1985 and 1986 on joint preservation
and joint collection development initiatives. The CIC Resources
Sharing project was established in 1987, which began an experimental
program and finally led to the 1990 Interlibrary Loan Network
FAX project, which established an Internet/FAX gateway for faxing
interlibrary loan materials. In 1989 the Coordinated Preservation
Microfilming Project was established at CIC libraries. This project
has resulted in more than 70,500 items being microfilmed or treated
for conservation by CIC libraries. Also in 1989, the library Task
Force on Mass Deacidification was charged with investigating the
organizational and logistical issues relating to mass deacidification
of brittle books.
In 1992, a draft strategic plan was developed from a joint meeting
of the CIC Chief Academic Officers and the Library Directors.
This plan called for a seamless access to the information resources
of the libraries within the CIC. It was this strategic plan that
might be looked at as the initial motivation for the development
of a proposal for the Virtual Electronic Library Project.
E. The Development of the VEL Proposal
Over the years the Library Directors of the CIC specifically
expressed concern over the lack of progress on cooperative collection
development and reciprocal access, even though these initiatives
were proposed as early as 1965. James Neal, at the time Director
of Indiana University library in Bloomington and Thomas Shaughnessy,
Director of the University of Minnesota library, started talking
about barriers to cooperation among the CIC libraries. They focused
on the need for a link to all the CIC library catalogs and for
an interlibrary loan module that would facilitate reciprocal access
and might thus also promote more cooperative collection development.
It was their assessment that the CIC institutions were not going
to increase involvement in cooperative collection development
and resource sharing until access to the other CIC library holdings
was at the level that they now had to their own local library
holdings.
Indiana had been working with NOTIS on a system that would link
the library catalogs of the various campuses of the Indiana University
system together. They approached NOTIS about expanding this concept
to the CIC libraries. NOTIS, which had been purchased by Ameritech
in 1991, indicated that if funds could be found, they would be
interested in pursuing the project to link the catalogs of the
CIC libraries.
In November 1992, the CIC Library Directors met with the CIC
Chief Academic Officers to discuss issues of cooperation among
CIC libraries. One of the suggestions that resulted from this
meeting was that the CIC library directors should begin to work
on a strategy for systematic resource sharing within the CIC.
This gave further impetus to working on a means of sharing access
to the Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) of the CIC University
libraries.
The minutes of the November 9, 1992 meeting of the CIC Library
Directors indicate that James Neal from Indiana University suggested
that the seven CIC NOTIS libraries and others who might have catalogs
that were Z39.50 protocol compliant consider a project to access
each of the participating library OPACs directly for interlibrary
loan, with or without an intermediary between the patron and the
lending library. Several libraries were interested in developing
such a proposal and Thomas Shaughnessy (University of Minnesota),
Hiram Davis (Michigan State University) and Sharon Hogan (University
of Illinois at Chicago) expressed interest in writing such a proposal.
Thomas Shaughnessy took the initiative and with the assistance
of CIC staff, drafted the proposal.
Entitled "Creating a Virtual Electronic Library, A Research
and Demonstration Grant Proposal," it called for exploring
the requirements for developing a technological infrastructure
needed to share catalog information and testing the feasibility
of user-initiated interlibrary loan through the CIC membership.
The proposal assumed the CIC NOTIS libraries as the base for the
research and demonstration project, since these libraries shared
a common cataloging base, and Ameritech, which had recently acquired
NOTIS, promised a technology in PACLink and PACSearch that would
meet the technical requirements of shared catalog data and user-initiated
interlibrary loan. This technology would use the ANSI/NISO Z39.50
Information Retrieval Service Definition and Protocol Specifications,
the national standard for computer-to-computer information retrieval.
Various economic and legal issues involving virtual electronic
libraries would also be analyzed.
The long tradition of cooperation among the CIC libraries was
the foundation for the proposal. The Reciprocal Borrowing Program,
which for years had permitted faculty from any CIC institution
to have on-site borrowing privileges at all other CIC universities,
the Collection Management Conferences, held since 1985 and developed
to enhance cooperative collection management within the CIC, and
the CIC Resource Sharing Program, which eliminated all interlibrary
loan fees among CIC institutions, were among the prior cooperative
efforts cited as indicators of the commitment and achievement
of the CIC institutions in prior library cooperation.
The objectives of the Virtual Electronic Library project were
stated in the proposal as:
1) Implement Z39.50 at all CIC libraries and demonstrate its
ability to provide seamless connections, with full searching capabilities,
to the online catalogs among the thirteen NOTIS and non-NOTIS
libraries of the CIC.
2) Develop and implement Z39.63, (The ANSI/NISO Interlibrary
Loan Data Elements standard), including automation of interlibrary
loan functions, retaining full provisions for security and authorization;
institute patron-initiated interlibrary loan of materials found
in searching the database at another institution; and assess the
impact on library operations.
3) Explore and develop further extensions and implications of
the Virtual Electronic Library, including the central mounting
of indexes and full-text databases that can be integrated into
the interlibrary loan process.
4) Disseminate the results, with emphasis on statistical and
user-survey data relevant to evaluating the validity and applicability
of the VEL paradigm.
In January 1993 the Virtual Electronic Library project proposal
was submitted by the CIC to the U.S. Department of Education.
In the fall of 1993 the CIC received a grant of 1.2 million dollars
from the Department of Education under Title IIA of the Higher
Education Act. The grant was for a three year period beginning
in October of 1993 and running through September 1996. A copy
of the Proposal and the Budget for the Project are provided in
Appendix A.
F. The Establishment of the Center for Library Initiatives (CLI)
The Center for Library Initiatives is the unit within the CIC
that has specific responsibilities for administering the VEL project.
In 1994 the CIC library directors adopted a Strategic Planning
Initiative to serve as a guide to rational development of a comprehensive
program of library resource sharing. This plan includes staff
development, access to and delivery of information resources,
cooperative collection management, preservation, shared cataloging,
and other areas of potential cooperation. The direct outgrowth
of this plan was the establishment of the CIC Center for Library
Initiatives in the fall of 1994. The Center for Library Initiatives
was established to promote and accelerate the CIC libraries' progress
toward making the full information resources of the CIC libraries
available to all members of the CIC. The CLI coordinates the various
cooperative library programs within the CIC, including the Virtual
Electronic Library project (VEL). For more information on the
CLI, see: http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/second_level/library.html.
G. The First Two Years of Phase I of the VEL Project (1993-1995)
The grant proposal was written with the assumption that the Ameritech
NOTIS PACLink system would provide the necessary software to meet
the requirements of establishing a Virtual Electronic Library.
The initial concept behind the PACLink software grew out of a
development partnership among NOTIS, the State University Library
Automation Network in Indiana, and the State University of New
York University Center Libraries. PACLink was a client/server
application that was to permit end-users at one site to connect
seamlessly to online catalogs at other sites. A library user would
be able to extend a search to the catalogs of all the institutions
linked through PACLink. There were two components of PACLink:
PACSearch and PACLoan. PACSearch was to provide a seamless interconnection
between the participating online catalogs. PACLoan was to provide
for the automated processing of requests for materials found by
the user in the catalogs at the other participating institutions
and was to automatically manage the requests.
In March 1994, four CIC university libraries began the tests
of the software (the University of Michigan, the University of
Minnesota, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Indiana
University). It was hoped that the PACLink software would enable
libraries to check circulation status and volume holding records,
to fully integrate PACLoan with the circulation system of the
participating library, to automate charge and discharge functions,
and to modify the loan request routing routine to allow "stacking"
of lending library locations, permitting staff mediation throughout
the process.
The libraries involved in the tests found the PACLink software
was not stable enough for full deployment. By the end of May 1994,
Indiana had aborted its test because of difficulty of implementation.
The other three libraries continued to test PACLoan, but with
disappointing results. In October 1995, Ameritech announced that
it was scrapping the PACLoan product and embarking on a new project
called "HM." Ameritech developed this new product in
hopes of solving some of the problems with the earlier product.
By the end of 1995, it became clear to the CIC Center for Library
Initiatives, the CIC institutions, and Ameritech that the software
was not going to meet the requirements of the CIC libraries. So
the CIC realized they would have to explore alternative vendors
if the VEL project was going to realize its goal.
Acknowledging that the PACLoan software and its replacement "HM"
was not going to be developed to meet the original specifications
set forth by the CIC, Ameritech refunded the money that had been
expended on the project to that point. The CIC developed a Request
for Information (RFI) in December 1995 to solicit proposals from
vendors to meet the required specification.
H. The Selection of a New Vendor
In December 1995, a Request for Information (RFI) was developed
and sent to over 20 potential respondents. In the spring of 1995,
responses were received from thirteen vendors. These responses
were reviewed and the list shortened to three of the vendors judged
to be most likely to meet the requirements of the VEL project.
A committee composed of all the Automation Directors of the CIC
libraries and one representative each from the CIC library public
services group, the CIC reference staff group, and the Interlibrary
Loan group met with CIC staff to interview the three finalists,
OCLC (Online Computer Library Center, Dublin, OH), DRA (Data Research
Associates, St. Louis, MO), and NSI (Network Support Incorporated,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). A copy of the RFI is included in Appendix
A.
In March 1996, the vendor selection committee recommended to
the CIC Library Directors that OCLC be chosen as the vendor to
provide immediate delivery of the enhanced WebZ and subscription
pricing for the PRISM Interlibrary Loan system (Phase I of VEL).
It was also recommended that OCLC be the first choice for the
Interlibrary Loan/Direct Request (ILL/DR) server (Phase II of
VEL). OCLC was seen by the group as the frontrunner in part because
of the level of development of the software and the familiarity
with the PRISM ILL system within the interlibrary loan community.
In September 1996, the installation of the OCLC software was
begun. Penn State University and the University of Minnesota were
among the first to do the installation. Penn State University
became operational with WebZ software by October 1, 1996. By the
fall of 1997 Minnesota and Penn State were using WebZ to receive
Direct Requests from users. By September 1997, six of the thirteen
libraries were operational with WebZ. By the spring of 1998, ten
of the thirteen libraries were operational with WebZ.
II. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: PHASE I
The elements of Phase I of the Virtual Electronic Library project
are:
1) The installation and customization of WebZ as an interface
to the catalogs of the 13 participating libraries, providing patron
access and request functions.
2) Establishment of a delivery system among participating library
for materials.
3) The refinement of Z39.50 protocols for improving the performance
of the VEL.
4) The reconciliation of differing circulation and lending policies
among the participating libraries.
5) Issues of security (authentication and authorization) in implementing
and maintaining the VEL.
In any such undertaking that is involved with the development
of both technology and policies that are new to the field, barriers
and special challenges will occur. The initial effort using Ameritech/NOTIS
PACLoan/HM software was a frustrating, but also a learning experience.
The primary lesson from this initial test period may be that the
CIC was attempting to accomplish goals that technology had not
yet developed the means to reach. It became clear that the vendor
and the participating library would have to work together on the
development of appropriate software and other technological applications
if the project was to succeed. But policy issues were also a factor
in the success of the project.
A. Technical Barriers and Special Challenges
Z39.50: There were a number of significant technical barriers
that had to be overcome. Perhaps the most significant in the early
stages was that the VEL project was initiated on the foundation
of the NOTIS system that was used by the majority of the CIC libraries
in 1993. Five CIC libraries (Wisconsin, Chicago, UIUC, Penn State,
and Ohio State) were not NOTIS libraries at the time the proposal
for the VEL was developed. Special solutions would have to be
found if all the CIC libraries were to participate. Adopting the
Z39.50 protocol seemed to be the direction for the CIC libraries
to consider if all libraries were to be accessible on one linked
network.
Eventually all five of the non-NOTIS libraries obtained or made
commitments to Z39.50-compatible systems for their library's catalog
and thus could participate. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
as an interim solution while it was converting to a Z39.50-compatible
system, made a link with the University of Illinois at Chicago
so its holding could be listed in the VEL. Although until it is
operational with a Z39.50 system, the holdings for Urbana-Champaign
are not necessarily current and accurate shelf status cannot be
indicated.
Adopting the Z39.50 standard did not solve all the problems of
developing an interface between the thirteen libraries. Z39.50
is a standard still in development and changes take place on a
regular basis. As various updates to the standard are received,
they must be incorporated into the local computer systems and
into the WebZ software. As a result, in the spring of 1998 a consultant,
Mark Hinnebusch, was retained by the CIC to make recommendations
on Z39.50 issues related to the implementation of the VEL. See
Item 9 in Appendix A for a summary of the consultant’s findings
and recommendations.
POST-NOTIS: It was originally hoped that basing the cooperative
effort on the NOTIS system would expedite the transfer of catalog
and circulation status information among the CIC libraries. Unfortunately,
other technical problems surfaced that dwarfed whatever advantages
initially existed among the NOTIS libraries that had initiated
the VEL project. The fact that not all the CIC libraries used
NOTIS and that some were not using Z39.50- compatible catalog
systems did complicate the planning. But in addition, there were
significant changes going on in the area of technical developments
in ownership and development of library management systems. NOTIS
was purchased by Ameritech, and other systems were being developed
by competing vendors that attracted the attention of many of the
CIC libraries. So as the VEL project evolved, more libraries migrated
from the original NOTIS system to alternative systems. Related
to this is the fact that different institutions chose to establish
different degrees of sophistication in search protocols in their
catalogs. Some used fairly simple author, title, subject searching,
while others adopted more complex searches based on keywords and
use of Boolean searching techniques. This has led to a compromise
within the VEL that might be characterized as the "lowest
common denominator" syndrome. This means that while the local
catalog may be searched with whatever more complex strategies
are built into the local system, when searching all the CIC catalogs,
not all those search strategies may apply.
A major technical barrier turned out to be the fact that the
VEL project was proposing to accomplish things that the current
technology could not deliver. As noted above, the technology had
not progressed sufficiently in 1994 and 1995 to produce the necessary
software and support the requirements of a single web-based interface,
to permit each of the 13 CIC libraries to seamlessly access each
other’s OPACs, and permit patron-initiated interlibrary loan
to take place. It was anticipated that Ameritech, the original
vendor for the project, would be able to solve the technical problems.
After nearly two years of trials and tests, it became clear that
another vendor would have to be found to meet the specifications
required for the "seamless web" of access envisaged
by the CIC.
WebZ: The WebZ server must be adjusted every time the local system
is modified on each of the local campuses. Thus not only when
revisions of Z39.50 are distributed does the WebZ program need
to be updated, but updating must take place when any one of the
thirteen CIC libraries make changes. The fact that OCLC is also
providing the CIC with enhanced versions of the WebZ software
before other customers have access to similar features means that
the CIC libraries cannot share problem solving discussions with
non-CIC libraries, since they are not necessarily working with
software having the same characteristics. The migration of OCLC
to Java for WebZ applications is also requiring greater training
time for the CIC library staff.
OCLC's WebZ is a step in the right direction, but it is still
in the development stage as far as the specifications of the VEL
project are concerned. As such, the project is truly living up
to its promise to be on the cutting edge of technological applications
to cooperation among major research libraries.
SECURITY: AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHORIZATION: Central to the success
of the VEL project is the ability to authenticate users over the
Web and verify whether they are authorized to have access to the
VEL. Originally the CIC started out with Kerberos, a cryptographic
method of authenticating users over a public computer network.
Building on this, the CIC developed a project known as ICAAP (the
Inter-CIC Authentication and Authorization Project) to permit
the development of a system that would permit secure inter-institutional
transactions to take place. In 1998 this project has been reformed
as "TRICAAP" to test in three institutions (Minnesota,
Penn State and Wisconsin) the authentication and authorization
techniques for a Web front-end. The technical issue of security
is obviously a very important one to the VEL and considerable
time and effort continues to go into the development of a secure
Web interface for inter-institutional access. A March 1996 report
from the CIC Library Automation Directors presents a continuum
of security issues relating to the VEL. The continuum ranges from
recognizing a system completely open to anyone, such as online
library catalogs, to limiting access to users authorized to have
access to specific restricted information, such as certain licensed
information in restricted categories as available through vendors
such as LEXIS. Internal financial and user information must also
be secure. For these and other security issues see the 1996 report
at: http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/security.html.
DELIVERY OF MATERIALS: The delivery of returnables, such as books,
is a technological challenge that faces nearly every library cooperative
consortium. Standard interlibrary loan delivery by the U.S. Postal
Service is not satisfactory because of the delay that often results.
One common solution has been to contract with a specified delivery
service. Initially the CIC entered into a contract with Pony Express,
which provided delivery of requested materials to the member libraries
in 1996. This service, however, did not meet the required speed
of delivery. In 1997 the services of Federal Express were used,
and while the speed of delivery was improved, the costs of delivery
also increased. Anticipating increased volume of materials loaned,
the projected costs of using Federal Express led to seeking a
third alternative. In 1998, Lanter was selected as the delivery
service for the CIC libraries based on a bid that would pay for
delivery on a preset fee basis even as volume might increase.
While the current delivery service is more cost-effective than
the first one used, it does not meet the speed of delivery desired
by some. A compromise between speed and cost is the way the current
delivery system has been described.
B. Policy Barriers and Challenges
DIFFERING DEFINITIONS OF USER: "Authorization" is concerned
with who is authorized to have access to the VEL. Differing policies
among the thirteen libraries resulted in a challenge in terms
of developing Interlibrary Loan, circulation, and patron borrowing
authorization policies that could be accepted by all thirteen.
Length of loan periods, types of materials that could be borrowed,
and who could borrow (faculty/staff, graduate, undergraduate,
alumni, etc.) tended to vary from institution to institution.
Many had long standing policies in place that presented a context
that seemed to be a barrier of the "seamless access"
goal of the VEL project. At this point the determination of who
is an authorized user of the VEL is left to the local institution.
It is a policy issue that may continue under discussion as changing
technology may suggest further considerations in the future of
determining who should be considered an authorized user.
DIVERSITY OF CULTURES: Institutional support from the University
Administrators and from Library Directors was central to the development
of the VEL project. As noted above, the project was developed
as a response to the Provosts of the CIC schools who called for
a means of sharing library and information resources among the
member institutions. The Library Directors took this charge to
heart and worked with the CIC Center for Library Initiatives toward
achieving this goal. But there are, as might be expected, barriers
within institutions. Undoubtedly, some staff struggled with balancing
the mission of the CIC VEL project with their perceptions of the
priorities of their home institution. The traditional differences
between public and private universities surfaced within the CIC,
with some in both public and private institutions concerned about
losing the integrity of their library collections as they were
folded into the virtual library concept.
The issue of the cost of cooperation through the VEL is understandably
a concern among some of the participants. The universities and
the library directors made a commitment to the support of the
development of the VEL, but the costs of maintaining the cooperative
effort impact staff in each of the participating institutions.
The issue of maintenance costs focus on two aspects: 1) the costs
of delivery of materials borrowed and 2) the costs to those libraries
that may become net lenders to the other CIC institutions. These
concerns will undoubtedly continue to be discussed at all levels
of the CIC VEL development process.
DIVERSITY OF COOPERATIVE EXPERIENCES: Past experiences with success
and failures in cooperative ventures as well as the concern over
centralized control vs. the autonomy of the local institution
are also barriers that have had to be faced. Some concerns that
had to be met included assuring the confidentiality of the data
in the system and the reliability of the operating system itself.
Those institutions that had already had a long history of regional
or statewide cooperative activities in user-initiated borrowing
and resource sharing tended to have fewer concerns about these
issues. But whenever a breakthrough in cooperative activity is
being implemented, it is inevitable that concerns such as these
would arise.
PROMOTION OF USE OF VEL: A number of libraries have become involved
in developing ways of promoting the use of the VEL. Penn State
had extensive explanations and documentation available from links
on its Web page. They even have a link for a brief history and
background on the VEL. The University of Michigan had developed
handouts, bookmarks, and articles for local newsletters on the
VEL. Clearly, the promotion of the use of the VEL will remain
an important policy decision if barriers to use are to be overcome.
C. Oversight of the VEL Project
The VEL project is overseen by these library groups; the CIC
Library Directors, the CIC Library Automation Directors, the CIC
Library Public Services Directors, the CIC Interlibrary Loan Directors,
the CIC Collection Development Officers, Heads of Reference, and
the Technical Services Directors. Each of these groups considers
VEL issues from their own perspectives. In addition there is a
special Task Force on VEL ILL/DR Technical Specifications. A VEL
Steering Committee representing a broad cross section of the key
constituencies within the CIC libraries coordinates the input
from the other groups and provides general oversight for the VEL
project. The Chairs of each of the major library groups sit on
the VEL Steering Committee.
Most of these library groups meet at least twice a year, and
many meet six or more times a year. Meetings are usually held
at the American Library Association conferences in the winter
and summer, and other meetings are scheduled either as telephone
conference calls or at the Big Ten Center in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Reports from these groups are regularly sent to the Library Directors
of the CIC Institutions.
Conversations with selected members of the library groups reveal
an impressive amount of dedication and enthusiasm for the VEL
project. Although concerns were occasionally expressed about the
amount of time required to work on their institution’s VEL
project components and a few expressed concern about the costs
involved with maintaining and adapting the WebZ interface to their
own institutions, nearly all looked on the project as a cutting
edge contribution to the profession and to the CIC institutions.
As noted above, one of the most consistent concerns expressed
by the participants was the impact of WebZ on their own local
catalog interface and the concern as to whether the total VEL
project could reach the desired quality and flexibility of searching
already obtained by some of the local interfaces. Some concerns
were also expressed regarding the volume of use of the CIC collections
through the VEL. Interestingly, some expressed concern over the
low use to date, while others were concerned that increased use
in the future might result in the need for financial reimbursement
for CIC libraries that became net lenders in the consortium.
D. Present Status
The platform for the VEL is the OCLC WebZ software. WebZ servers
at each of the CIC campuses provide an interface to a range of
databases, primarily the various CIC OPACs. An interesting and
important feature of the VEL is that each library customizes the
interface to work best with its local Web site. That is, the VEL
is often listed as one of many digital resources available from
any CIC library Web page. The VEL is not a separate and monolithic
system. This allows a great degree of flexibility in presenting
the VEL to users. However, it also means that the VEL is presented
differently on each campus.
Using a standard Web browser (such as Netscape Navigator or Microsoft’s
Internet Explorer), the user points to the local WebZ server (generally
through the local library's Web site) and can conduct a search
of any or all CIC catalogs with a single command. Library users
are able to connect seamlessly to bibliographic and circulation
information from the local catalogs, locally mounted resource
files and remote databases. Once an item is located, the same
interface allows the user to place a request. Requests are shipped
directly to the OCLC ILL system through a WebZ-to-OCLC link known
as OCLC ILL Direct Request. Data on the volume of interlibrary
loan requests initiated through the VEL WebZ interface are presented
in Table I. (See attached “VEL Interlibrary Loan Data”)
The characteristics of the current interfaces reflect a variety
of approaches to access. Table II shows the current status of
WebZ and the Direct Request function in the 13 CIC libraries.
(See attached “Status of VEL Development at the Participating
CIC Institutions”)
A sample of the WebZ pages encountered when the user clicks on
the CIC library's home page for a search of collections are provided
in Appendix B. These samples show the variety of approaches to
the VEL, with some indicating prominently that the interface is
the CIC VEL (University of Chicago and Penn State) and others
hardly noting that what is being used is the VEL (University of
Michigan and Michigan State). Some also provide options or subunits
of the VEL (University of Chicago) or other libraries not in the
VEL (University of Michigan and Michigan State). Clearly, as the
WebZ is being adapted to the local interfaces, each institution
is interpreting the VEL and its relationship to other sources
with its own flavor and character.
Because the Phase I implementation is dependent upon Z39.50 protocols,
the CIC libraries have devoted a great deal of attention to the
issues around this standard and its application in linked systems
projects such as ours. In 1997 the CIC Library Automation Directors
authored a white paper outlining some of the major concerns, and
this document is available at http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/cli/veltech.html.
(See also Appendix A.) To help explore these issues more fully,
the CIC engaged a consultant to assist in documenting the various
Z39.50 configurations within the consortium and to assist in making
recommendations regarding the modification of these individual
configurations to maximize the use of WebZ. (See Item 9 in Appendix
A for the summary findings and recommendations of that report.)
III. FUTURE PLANS
Phase II: An Entirely New Way of Managing ILL Transactions
Phase II development of the Virtual Electronic Library, providing
a complete management system for CIC interlibrary lending and
document requests, is underway. Guided by a team composed of the
CIC VEL ILL/DR Technical Specifications Task Force and key OCLC
development staff, the CIC is in the process of defining and developing
a "peer-to-peer" interlibrary loan and document request
system. Development in 1998 involved the testing and discussion
of interface and workflow design. The system will be client/server
based, with a management server handling all of the incoming and
outgoing interlibrary loan and document requests for each CIC
university. The server will interact with circulation systems,
document suppliers and bibliographic utilities, and will be built
based upon standard protocols for such data exchange. As of May
2000 the CIC early implementation sites had just completed the
final acceptance testing period for the most recent release of
the beta version of the software.
The Digital Future
Ultimately, the VEL will build upon work under way within the
CIC libraries collectively and individually in building and providing
access to digital information systems. Pulling together these
disparate resources into the VEL environment will be the focus
of much of the collaborative development for the CIC libraries
over the next several years. As the number of digital resources
increases in depth and breadth, CIC libraries will be challenged
to provide reliable, easy-to-use access to this information. It
will be important to design seamless access systems that not only
build upon traditional models of information access, but take
advantage of new technologies to maximize the potential of digital
information. Moreover, the access systems must interface with
legacy systems such as the huge bibliographic databases managed
by the CIC university libraries. The VEL is the doorway to the
vast information resources of the CIC universities whether those
resources are print-based or digital and is the umbrella under
which the collaborative work of the CIC libraries takes place.
The partnership with OCLC is important in realizing these goals.
More information on the work of the CIC is available at its Web
site http://www.cic.uiuc.edu/.
Special thanks to Terry Weech for his editorial assistance with
this report.
*************************************
Go to the Project
Implementation Chronology
|
