Constitutional Convention Ballot Proposals

Title

HathiTrust Distributed Print Monographs Archive Proposal

Date

August 23, 2011

Summary

Proposes establishment of a distributed print archive of monographic holdings corresponding to volumes represented within HathiTrust that is collectively supported by the HathiTrust membership.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust establish a distributed print monograph archiving program among HathiTrust member libraries?

Whereas, HathiTrust is a reliable and increasingly comprehensive digital archive of library materials converted from print that is–collaboratively sustained and managed by a number of academic and research institutions; and

Whereas, HathiTrust dramatically improves access to these materials in ways that, first and foremost, meet the needs of its member institutions; and

Whereas, 74% of Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2010 U.S. academic library director respondents said that withdrawal of print books would be an important future strategy for their libraries if a robust digital alternative were available; and

Whereas, 84% of U.S. library directors indicated that they would be more likely to withdraw their print book collections if their library could provide guaranteed on-demand access to print versions through a sharing network such as HathiTrust; and

Whereas, HathiTrust is ideally situated to leverage the associated needs of print and digital collection management on behalf of its member libraries; therefore be it

Resolved, That the scope of activities supported through membership in HathiTrust shall include the creation and maintenance of a distributed archive of print monographs (hereafter, “the print archive”) corresponding to the content of HathiTrust’s digital collections;

Presently, American research libraries sit at the cusp of the most profound change in their operations since the Second World War brought the nation’s national interest and the research activities of universities into close alignment. The development of the Internet resulted from research conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense at our universities, and the technology boom that this invention ushered into existence has, in turn, fostered the potential for ubiquitous of information access—access which now challenges the very foundation underlying the development of vast collections of printed literature in our nation’s libraries.

At many of our universities, the cherished goal in previous centuries was to build a facility capable of holding vast printed collections—collections that would attract scholars with the capacity to build a great research university, regardless of the proximity of the institution to larger population centers. This model for collection development and access, embraced in the face of a scarcity of information, is today becoming less and less relevant to our core mission. As resource sharing and the ability of our institutions to share information about our holdings solidified, reliance upon the broader network of research libraries to help deliver needed resources grew. The digitization and delivery of aggregated content is putting further pressure on the notion that information is a scarce commodity, especially for those resources that are widely accepted as residing in the public domain. As efforts to address orphan works advance, the ability of libraries to cooperatively share and manage resources will increase.

From its inception, HathiTrust has aspired to reshape the landscape of research libraries. This landscape includes the management of vast, highly-redundant collections of printed resources for which readily accessible digital instantiations are increasingly available. The aspirations of HathiTrust do not, however, change the shared values that guide our institutions. These shared values include a commitment to provide access to resources, to preserve the scholarly record, and to steward the resources – those both cultural and financial – entrusted to our responsibility.

With the advent of HathiTrust—a community-supported repository of digitized texts – the opportunity exists for our institutions to not only work together to profoundly influence the landscape in which we provide access to cultural resources but to profoundly influence the mechanisms by which we ensure persistence of the printed record.

Empowering the Executive Committee to plan and implement a cooperative print retention program will allow HathiTrust to develop a sustainable business model for this new role, establish plans to coordinate print monograph retention commitments, and authorize the expansion of the cost model to accommodate this additional work.

The model should parallel other models employed in the development of print repositories: a long-term agreement with scheduled reviews to ensure continued value and relevance to the partnership.

The implications of such an agreement are clear. Transparency and durability will create trusted relationships and foster a shared approach to collection management; the assurance that reliable copies exist elsewhere in the research library ecosystem will allow other libraries to responsibly reduce the size of local collections to save and/or reallocate space, without risk of irretrievable loss to the collective collection; and decreasing reliance on print collections with fewer resources devoted to their care will allow libraries to direct a greater portion of their resources toward growing digital uses and more targeted curatorial management of the print collections.

Greater interdependence among research collections and a gradual reduction in overall redundancy will require careful attention to the nature of access and resource-sharing arrangements for materials for which there continues to be demand in original physical form.

One-time expenditures of HathiTrust (and/or external) resources will be used to support the planning process. Long-term costs will be determined, but it is anticipated that eligible storage facilities that make preservation commitments will be compensated at a level that partially subsidizes those institutions making retention commitments while being reasonable and sustainable for the partnership.

Savings may be obtained from locally-managed budgets at individual partner institutions, as disclosed retention commitments would empower partners to make informed decisions about local retention.

See Exhibit A

HathiTrust Collections Committee, on behalf of the HathiTrust Executive Committee

Ivy Anderson, California Digital Library, Chair

Sharon E. Farb, UCLA

Bryan Skib, University of Michigan

Claire Stewart, Northwestern University

Thomas H. Teper, UIUC, Executive Committee Liaison

Ann Thornton, New York Public Library

Bob Wolven, Columbia University, Strategic Advisory Board Liaison

Title

Approval process for development initiatives by HathiTrust partner organizations.

Date

August 31, 2011

Summary

A proposal for HathiTrust to formalize a transparent process for inviting, evaluating, ranking and launching development initiatives from HathiTrust partner institutions.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust formalize a transparent process for inviting,evaluating, ranking, launching and assessing development initiatives (including the incorporation of existing services and tools along with those to be newly developed) from HathiTrust partner institutions?

Whereas HathiTrust desires to encourage the contribution of HathiTrust partners in order to leverage the expertise and resources of those partners, and

Whereas, Development initiatives should closely align with the published Strategic Goals and Objectives of HathiTrust, and

Whereas, Development initiatives have the potential to inform and influence the Strategic Goals and Objectives of HathiTrust, and

Whereas, Development initiatives endorsed by HathiTrust necessarily consume the finite human, financial and technical resources of HathiTrust and HathiTrust partners, therefore be it

Resolved, That HathiTrust formalize a transparent process for inviting, evaluating, ranking and launching development initiatives from HathiTrust partner institutions.

Resolved, That HathiTrust form a working group composed of members from multiple HathiTrust institutions to design this process.

Resolved, That the working group be charged by and report to HathiTrust Strategic Advisory Board.

Resolved, That the working group be formed within three months of approval of this proposal.

Resolved, That the working group bring a recommendation to the HathiTrust Strategic Advisory Board within three months of being formed.

This proposal lays out high level considerations for an approval process for development initiatives, but cedes the development of the charge to the Strategic Advisory Board.

High level considerations:

• The process should be invoked only for those projects exceeding a certain level of resource investment (in time or dollars).
  • HathiTrust will establish and make public this threshold.
• The process should be necessarily bi-directional.
  • Partner institutions will propose development initiatives based on institutional expertise, and HathiTrust will additionally name development initiative opportunities based on the needs of HathiTrust.
  • Obligations for both parties should be made explicit.
  • The ability of HathiTrust operational staff to both vet and support project proposals, based on available resources must also be considered.
  • Policy issues will need to be identified and resolved before any development initiatives begin.
• Statements of interest should include the following high level information
  • project description
  • statement of alignment with HathiTrust strategic goals and objectives
  • scope of work
  • schedule and projected completion dates
  • resource commitment, both financial and in kind

Empowering the Strategic Advisory Board to oversee the design of this formal process will ensure that review of development initiatives is closely aligned with HathiTrust Strategic Goals and Objectives, and will create a feedback loop to inform future strategic direction. It is recognized that this proposed process will require an allocation of HathiTrust operational staff resources.

See Attachment A: Example Considerations for an Approval Process for Development Initiatives by HathiTrust Partner Organizations

University of California, Cornell University, Columbia University

Title

Governance                          

Date

September 4, 2011 (revised September 16, 2011)

Summary

A proposal to establish an effective governance structure.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust establish a stable and effective governance structure consisting of a Board, a Board Executive Committee, and Board-appointed committees to ensure timely review of current issues, including periodic review of the cost model, and shall Hathitrust’s governance be based on a set of clearly articulated Bylaws and a process for amending them?

Whereas the HathiTrust membership has grown significantly since its founding; and

Whereas the current governance structure consists of an Executive Committee whose members derive only from the host and founding institutions, and Committees appointed by the Executive Committee; and

Whereas HathiTrust’s governance structure no longer reflects the composition of its membership; and

Whereas different members have different levels of investment, including both content and financial investment; and

Whereas HathiTrust’s governance is not based on a set of fundamental bylaws; therefore, be it

The HathiTrust’s initial governance structure was developed to sustain the organization’s early years until a permanent structure could be put in place.  The Trust has reached a membership size and level of maturity to require governance that reflects the new membership base and its needs.

A new governance structure will enable the HathiTrust to function on the basis of a set of ratified bylaws and through a body that represents the entire membership’s interests.

None

CIC University Librarians

Title

Expanded coverage & enhanced access to U.S. Government Documents

Date

September 4, 2011

Summary

U.S. federal documents represent a significant resource for research and education.  The CIC’s initiative to digitize a comprehensive corpus of print documents is making significant headway, but an expanded effort is proposed. Further, problems with cataloging records and basic metadata do not provide sufficiently robust discovery to these complex resources.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust, through coordinated and collective action, expand and enhance access to U.S. federal publications including those issued by GPO and other federal agencies?

Whereas, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation and its member libraries have digitized a significant body of U.S. federal documents; and

Whereas, HathiTrust now contains a sizable number (300,000) of U.S. documents, representing approximately 1/5 to 1/3 of all printed documents; and

Whereas, the majority of federal documents are in the public domain and can be fully revealed in Hathi; and

Whereas government documents are critical resources for scholarship and are significantly represented (and duplicated) in all academic libraries; and

Whereas digital surrogates of print documents offer notable opportunity for collective approaches to print retention and preservation; and

Whereas past cataloging practices and current metadata for government documents do not provide sufficient search/retrieval capability to match research needs; and

Whereas recent studies conducted by Ithaka S +R and Outsell (both for GPO) highlight the significant opportunities enabled by a comprehensive corpus and the challenges of inadequate discovery for these complex resources; therefore be it

Resolved, that HathiTrust facilitate collective action to create a comprehensive digital corpus of U.S. federal publications including those issued by GPO and other federal agencies.

Resolved, that the HathiTrust initiate and carry out a planning process to coordinate operational plans and a business model to further and sustain coordinated digitization, ingest, and display of U.S. federal publications including those issued by GPO and other federal agencies.

Resolved, that this operational planning and business modeling begin consideration of born-digital publications of GPO and other federal agencies

Resolved, that HathiTrust develop a process of catalog record review to ensure accurate and full display of U.S. federal publications including those issued by GPO and other federal agencies.

Resolved, that HathiTrust develop a process to implement enhanced access protocols to fully realize the potential of a comprehensive corpus of U.S. federal publications including those issued by GPO and other federal agencies.

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) was established by Congress to ensure that the American public has access to government information. Some 1230 libraries participate in FDLP to make federal publications accessible.

Collections in government document depository libraries represent a rich source of information.  Government publications provide historical context, inform policy, document critical trends, and also reflect the evolution of graphic arts and publishing.  The FDLP has moved to digital distribution of government documents.  Approximately 97% of new government publications available through the Program are disseminated electronically.  With programs to convert legacy print collections to digital form comes the opportunity to develop a comprehensive, network-accessible, digital library of United States federal publication.

 Several recent analyses endorse collective approaches to the problems of creating robust access to and sustainable preservation of federal publications:

• A 2009 study by Ithaka S + R commissioned by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) underscored the importance of creating a comprehensively digitized collection of historic print document collections as a core resource for U.S. libraries. The report also notes that “once digital surrogates meet preservation thresholds, remaining preservation objectives for print format will require far fewer copies than are currently provisioned via regional libraries.”  The report further notes that current discovery systems do not effectively serve user needs for seamless and immediate access.
• A 2011 study by Ithaka S + R commissioned by the Government Printing Office concluded that organizing an appropriate investment in digital preservation and integrity may require that digital and digitized collections be held outside the control of the federal government to provide a credible system for preservation and integrity of document collections.
• A 2011 survey of user needs by Outsell commissioned by GPO documents strong responses in favor of the provision of more materials online, better finding tools, and the provision of more training and tutorials to facilitate the use of complex government information.

The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (or CIC) has been leading a coordinated effort to digitize government documents and over 300,000 are currently available in the HathiTrust.  An additional 200,000 are available from other Google partners, and the project continues with an approximate target of digitizing a total of 1+ million print documents.  Reaching a comprehensive corpus of digital documents will require analysis in identifying target materials, coordinated digitization and deposit in Hathi, and investment to ensure full coverage and discoverability.

Discovery of government documents in HathiTrust is challenged by inaccuracies in government documents’ status in cataloging records and by metadata that inadequately represent the publications and their critical relationship to other resources.  Notably, government documents represent a type of material where changes in agency names and government process present serious obstacles for research.  Linked data strategies offer promise to express relationships between HathiTrust resources that would otherwise be hidden and can suggest additional terms or invoke automated queries to enhance searching. Another major use of government documents is associated with legislative activity.  Bibliographic records provide metadata for parts of the legislative process but lack the hierarchical arrangement that places the documents in a logical sequence and relationship.  Crowdsourcing mechanisms would enable expert user tagging of relationships and the documentation of full legislative history. 

The HathiTrust and its member libraries have potential to realize a comprehensive corpus of US documents and create the enabling discovery infrastructure to fully utilize these rich resources.

A comprehensive digital archive of US documents in digital form offers significant potential for research and opportunity to reduce costs of collection management and access in libraries.  Safeguarding digital surrogates within a non-profit context will preserve the integrity of these valued resources. Strategies to enhance discovery offer models for access that may have applicability in other contexts.

A DPLA Beta Sprint proposal submitted by the University of Minnesota offers details of linked data and crowdsourcing  strategies to enhance discovery:  http://z.umn.edu/dplaumn

Committee on Institutional Cooperation University Librarians

Title

Mission and goals           

Date

September 4, 2011

Summary

A proposal to broaden the stated mission of HathiTrust.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall the current subsidiary goals under the HT mission statement be broadened by the addition of a goal that looks beyond the current stated focus on building a“digital archive of library materials converted from print,” instead opening the door to consideration of the full range of “digital assets of intellectual value to our scholars and the academic research enterprise”?

Whereas HathiTrust has demonstrated remarkable facility to manage digital surrogates of print library materials; and

Whereas the membership of HathiTrust has grown to encompass universities with broad-ranging intellectual assets (including, but not limited to audio and video files, art slides, research data, museum specimens, born digital files, etc.); and

Whereas the HathiTrust members have the resources and capacity to collaborate on further infrastructure development, be it

Resolved that the stated mission of Hathi Trust be broadened by encompassing a second subsidiary goal that reads,  “To collaboratively develop cost-effective and meaningful infrastructure for ingesting digital assets of intellectual value to university scholars and the research enterprise.”

Resolved that the current fourth subsidiary goal be amended to read,“To build infrastructure that facilitates cost-effective and productive collaboration among partnering institutions to reduces the long-term capital and operating costs of securing campus intellectual assets.”

It is recognized that the university of Michigan has considerable facility for managing digital resources converted from print, and in the short-term we would not want to slow the progress they are making to secure Google, Internet Archive, and locally created digital library resources.  In the longer term, however, we would encourage that the door remain open to addressing campus content needs, beyond “library materials converted from print.”  HathiTrust itself might lead in some of this longer term development, but in the short-term, and so as not to slow progress on the work of ingesting digital surrogates of library print materials, we encourage the development of infrastructure and communication strategies that stimulate and support partner collaborations that address the development of strategies for ingesting, securing and making accessible a broader range of campus content.

Proposed amended goals attached below

CIC member universities, as represented by their University Librarians

Title

HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee

Date

September 4, 2011 (revised September 16, 2011)

Summary

A proposal to create a HathiTrust committee to review the implications and applicability of services, policies, and procedures developed by its members before they are adopted by the HathiTrust as a community service.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust create a committee to review and approve new policies and procedures developed originally by its members before they are implemented by HathiTrust for the use of the larger community?

The formal proposal, formulated according to Robert’s Rules of Order “Motions and Resolutions”http://bit.ly/rimjCS. Proposals must include a “Resolved” clause clearly stating the proposed action and any specific terms and nuances of the proposal.

Whereas, HathiTrust will continue to incorporate services and procedures developed by its individual members for the benefit of its members ; and

Whereas, as HathiTrust develops and grows, its policy and implementation decisions will have ever-greater impact on its members,  and

Whereas, HathiTrust’s progress will be enhanced if it receives regular and concerted input and review from HathiTrust members, and

Whereas, HathiTrust will fail if it implements programs that do not have the general approval and support of its members; therefore, be it

Resolved,That before the HathiTrust or any partner institution implements a new program or procedure on behalf of HathiTrust building on the HathiTrust repository, the HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee assesses and approves the development.

Resolved, That the goal of the HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee  is to ensure that HathiTrust partners have the opportunity to comment on the proposed implementation, particularly as it may affect them in each specific institutional context.

Resolved, that the HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee will develop a review process to gather information about new programs and processes and implement a comment period for HathiTrust members to identify and raise any issues that may be associated with the initiative.

Resolved, that the HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee can call on experts at member institutions on an ad hoc basis to assist in its review process.

Resolved, that the review process will only apply to initiatives that require assessment due to their broad appeal and potential local implications (e.g., Copyright Review Management System)  so that it will not inhibit the open sharing of creative tools and applications among members.

Resolved, That the committee be charged by and report to the HathiTrust Executive Committee.

Since the HathiTrust’s inception, the University of Michigan has initiated pioneering and visionary programs that build on the HathiTrust collection.  Examples include the Copyright Review Management System, which is opening public domain works to all HathiTrust members; its recently-announced Orphan Works project, which several HathiTrust members have since supported; and its progress in making the broad range of HathiTrust materials accessible to visually-impaired students at the University of Michigan.  Michigan is to be congratulated on each of these initiatives. 

As the HathiTrust grows, it is likely that other institutions will wish to develop programs and procedures that will take advantage of the repository. HathiTrust will want to continue to rely on innovation and experimentation that takes place at individual member institutions. At the same time, policies and practices that fit a specific institution’s technical, legal, and policy framework may not work for other HathiTrust members or may actually put them at risk. 

The basic issue that this resolution addresses is to put in place procedures that will ensure that the policies and practices adopted at member institutions or by the HathiTrust itself have broad applicability to other HathiTrust members.  It is critical that this review process is not perceived as a barrier to open sharing of creative tools and applications among members.

The review process will only apply to initiatives that require assessment due to their broad appeal and potential local implications (e.g., Copyright Review Management System). 

Consensus may not always be possible, but there should be mechanisms that will allow all HathiTrust members to understand and comment upon new HathiTrust implementations, and to suggest ways that implementation mitigate against any potential local harm on their campus.  The proposal requires that any major new initiative be vetted before a  HathiTrust Implementation Review Committee. By calling on the assistance of experts from individual campuses as well as allowing for public comment on each new program, the Committee will guarantee that all members are comfortable with the technical, legal, and policy implications of any new implemented program.

If the policy is implemented, it may slow slightly the implementation of new programs and services.  Achieving consensus and acquiring feedback takes time.  The great benefit is that the resulting service is likely to be improved, and overall risks to HathiTrust will be reduced.  It complements Ballot 2, which recommends formalizing a transparent process for inviting, evaluating, ranking, and launching development initiatives from HathiTrust partner institutions. 

Cornell University, Columbia University, University of California

Title

HathiTrust fee-for-service content deposit

Date

September 4, 2011

Summary

A proposal for HathiTrust to have a fee-for-service model to allow contribution of content from non-partner entities.

Yes/No Formulation

Shall HathiTrust develop and vet a fee-for-service model to allow contribution of content from non-partner entities?

Whereas, HathiTrust has received many requests from institutions and organizations that wish to preserve digital content in HathiTrust without participating in or receiving the benefits of partnership, and

Whereas, the inclusion of rare or unique materials digitized by these organizations has the potential to increase the value and usefulness of HathiTrust to scholars and researchers; and

Whereas, HathiTrust has an existing fee model that is based on the size (i.e., in bytes) of data deposited; be it

Resolved,That HathiTrust develop and vet a model for accepting deposit of digital content from non-partner institutions.

Resolved, That proposals of deposit from non-partners be submitted to a formal review process, to be determined by the Board of Governors

Resolved,That fees for maintaining non-partner content, including fees related to ingest and basic infrastructure costs, be offered at rates approved by the Board of Governors.

Resolved, That non-partner content be made available to partners through the same services as partner-contributed content of equivalent formats and types.

Resolved, That non-partner content and metadata be held to the same validation and quality standards as partner content in HathiTrust.

Resolved, That the depositor be responsible for ensuring compliance with these standards or compensating HathiTrust for modifications needed for compliance.

Resolved, That non-partners be subject to the same legal conditions and terms of deposit as partner libraries, including the obligation to pay to sustain the content in the repository through a contractual period.

Resolved, That non-partners not receive any of the additional content access, governance, or participation benefits that come with partnership.

Resolved, That non-partners have the ability at any time, dependent on their institutional or organizational status, to become partners in HathiTrust and receive the attendant benefits.

Implications and impact

At a time when more cultural heritage organizations are digitizing selected important books and images from their collections, HathiTrust has an opportunity both to enrich its collections and provide a viable preservation home for this content. Implementing a model to accommodate this content with the same rigor and through the same mechanisms as partner content will make HathiTrust attractive to potential content providers seeking digital preservation services.

There will be costs to HathiTrust associated with implementing a fee-for-service model. These costs are primarily those associated with processing requests (e.g., guiding depositors through the deposit process, validation, and getting the relevant information to decision-making bodies). These are costs that can built into the costs of deposit. Approval of this proposal could thus benefit both depositors and partners, as it would provide HathiTrust the flexibility to admit content that would enrich its collections and add value to researchers, while at the same time accommodating the needs of organizations for cost-effective preservation and access for their digitized content.

University of Michigan