Information and Research Services (IRS) Team

February 21, 2006
1:30-3:00 pm
McKeldin 4102

Present: O. Chadley (facilitator), P. Herron (notetaker), J. Schalow, G. Ruth, A. Klair, A. Young, L. Wrubel, M. Singh, M. Vikor, C. Todd, J. Stahl

TOPIC: CPCT’s Proposal Related to Catalog and DRUM:

J. Schalow gave some background on the history of UM masters theses and doctoral dissertations in the UM Libraries collections. As of December 2003 the graduate departments and programs began making their theses and dissertations available only electronically. They no longer provide the Libraries with paper copies. Proquest now provides us with one paper copy which goes to the Maryland Room as an archival copy. Some, such as music scores and art related theses and dissertations will include only the abstracts because the bulk of the resource is in other formats such as jpeg or mp3 files. The main access venue for all theses and dissertations since 12/03 is electronically through DRUM.

CPCT is developing guidelines and a program to derive MARC records from DRUM data (with a minimum of human intervention) so that the records for these electronic theses and dissertations will be available in the Libraries online catalog. They would like feedback from IRS-T on the following issues related to this project:

1. Abstracts:
Do we wish to have the abstracts of these theses and dissertation searchable in the Online Catalog? If so, what will be the implications in Catalog searches where large numbers of abstracts can be searched? Will this result in too many false hits? Do the benefits of being able to search abstracts in theses and dissertations outweigh the problems or vice versa? According to Dean Lowry, at “Carnegie Mellon, the Reference staff had to teach students how to search using the “not” operator in order to exclude material that included abstracts, largely because every search result included these materials.”

2. Librarian generated subject headings and student generated keywords:
Under the old cataloging policy librarians added subject headings to dissertations but not to theses. Students add their own keywords to the bibliographic record of their theses/dissertations, however these are not from controlled vocabulary so they are not consistent and not always very descriptive of the subject matter. TSD does not intend to use its limited staff resources to add controlled subject headings to the records of theses and dissertations

3. Schools, Department, and Programs:
DRUM does a good job of organizing these resources under the “Communities and Collections” browse list. The proposed MARC record includes a note: Thesis research directed by: with the name of the school/program as stated in the DRUM record (the two sample records are “Art” and “Electrical Engineering” – not the established forms of the name that we have used in the past).” Is the ability to search by communities and collections in DRUM sufficient or does Cataloging need to put efforts into identifying the established name of the school, department, or program associated with the thesis/dissertation and add this information to the catalog record?

IRS-T members will take these issues back to their teams/constituents and get feedback. IRS-T will discuss these issues at the next meeting and come up with recommendations for CPCT. Questions about this project can be emailed to tsd-cpct@umd.edu

TOPIC: Access to remote video conferencing:

M. Singh proposed that in the future IRS-T meet in McKeldin 7121 which has the equipment in it necessary for videoconferencing. This way she would not need to travel to College Park for the meetings, nor would the other Team members need to travel to Shady Grove when they facilitate and host the meetings. C. Todd will check with A. Rough to verify that the room is set up for this. She will report back at the next meeting and we will discuss the next steps.

TOPIC: Flash Drives Proposal:

Since S. Baykoucheva was not in attendance, IRS-T decided to postpone discussion of the issue until the next meeting.

TOPIC: IRS-T Workplan:

IRS-T went over the Team’s the accomplishments for 2005 which C. Todd will write up for the annual report. The Team began discussing of what to include in the Team’s 2006 workplan. This discussion will continue at the next meeting.

TOPIC: Announcements:

A. Young – Government Documents is now wired at their new location. They are considering having a “new location opening party.”

C. Todd – Remote printing at McKeldin is getting a fair amount of use. J. Stahl noted that there are problems doing remote printing from the WAM labs. C. Todd said this is being investigated.

Pending Agenda Items:

• 2006 Workplan Development
• Flash Drives Proposal Revisited
• Update on Video Conferencing Equipment
• Discuss CPCT’s Proposal Related to the Catalog and DRUM

Next IRS-T Meeting

• Date: March 7, 2006
• Time: 1:30 p.m.—3:00 p.m.
• Place: McKeldin Library, Room 4102
• Facilitator: Pat Herron
• Notetaker: Maggie Cunningham