| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Changed data element definitions (FY2015)

Page history last edited by Kim Miller 8 years, 10 months ago

 

May 19, 2015

 

Question

 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I am getting my FY15 survey ready and want to use the new definitions for sections 450-460. When I first looked at these changes, I thought they were OK. Now, on closer inspection, I find some of the wording to be confusing. In the introductory text for the section that starts: “This section of the survey (450-460) collects data on selected types of materials.” There is a line that reads “Do not include items freely available without monetary exchange.” I think the intent works fine with electronic materials, but I’m afraid it is confusing or contradictory when talking about physical items since we also say to report items that have been purchased, leased, or licensed … by a donor… Donated items are by their very nature “freely available without monetary exchange.”  I think I am going to leave that line out of my definition for physical items and include it only for the electronic materials. I understand the intent, but I’m afraid that my directors will only be confused by this statement. Some of them like to read into every detail and make a big deal out of perceived inconsistencies.

 

I’m also a bit confused about the sentence that states “Count electronic materials at the administrative entity level; do not duplicate numbers at each branch” I’m assuming that we want a total count of all branch use of the electronic materials, just like we do with physical items. I don’t think I understand the “duplicate numbers” part.

 

This is what I ended up with for the physical items in my survey. I think it keeps the intent of the changes.

Report only items that have been purchased, leased or licensed by the library, a consortium, Iowa Library Services, a donor or other person or entity. Included items must only be accessible with a valid library card or at a physical library location. Inclusion in the catalog is not required. Do not include items that are permanently retained by the patron. Count only items that have a set circulation period. Do not include uncataloged paperbacks. Do not include the number of serial items.

 

I’d appreciate any help that I can get with this.

 

Thanks.

 


 

SDC Comments

 

Susan Mark (WY)

 

With donated materials, someone paid for them at some point. That was the intent of that language. However, it may need to be clarified for the end user a little better. Nicely caught.


 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

These are good questions, and ones I think we’re all going to need to grapple with.

 

I have read and thought about the “freely available” and “donor” issue a number of times. I ended up understanding “freely available” meaning “freely available on the internet to everyone.” I’ve had folks who want to count Google Books, or Project Guttenberg books, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid here. Further, although a donor (or consortia purchase) may make materials “freely available” to patrons, the materials weren’t initially free – someone had to purchase them for the library.

 

Re: Count electronic materials at the administrative entity level: In my experience, electronic materials are made available at the administrative/system level – not the branch. Some systems assign patron cards a branch, but not all do, so different libraries might come to a total count of electronic material use differently. Regardless, I think the admonition applies to the count for electronic materials (units) – NOT the usage.

 

I agree that we should continue to refine and clarify these definitions going forward.

 

Happy Tuesday, All,


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

(Laura)

 

I have the same understanding as you on the first point. I just think it confuses the end user.

 

Thank you for the clarification on branches. My mind was indeed stuck on circulation. That line makes total sense to me know.

 

Thanks for the help.

 


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

(Susan)

 

But the library doesn’t pay for donated materials. As far as the library is concerned, it is just as free as Project Gutenberg. I thought one of the reasons to include donated materials in the definition for physical material types is that it would be impossible to differentiate them from purchased items.

 

Actually, now reading the definition again. I have another question. We say that inclusion in the catalog is not required. This makes sense for downloadable materials, but does that means that we need to start counting uncataloged paperbacks? That is something we’ve never counted before – at least in Iowa.

 

I think my hang up with this wording is that it is in the general introductory text for the section. I think trying to lump physical and electronic together in this introductory definition doesn’t work. But elements of it work fine based on each individual collection type.


 

Cecilie Maynor (TN)

 

I am also preparing for the survey these days and will send an email to our libraries with an overview of changes to definitions (and possibly new questions?).

 

I am curious about how libraries will count e-collections versus databases this year. We have previously talked about selected vs not selected titles and since this is no longer part of the definition how much will that impact what they are counting?

 

I definitely need to learn more about the different vendors and how they work!


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I actually don’t think the selected vs not selected issue has changed with the clarifications. We still have the text for “units of acquisition or purchase.” I still see selection as a major criteria for these elements. Maybe I’m wrong about that change. That would be a huge problem if that part of the element is totally gone. I would not have voted for change.


 

Cecilie Maynor (TN)

 

You are probably right, but it is easy to get this muddled up I think. How are units purchased..as  a pre-selected group or individual titles? I might just be confusing myself here (It happens for sure).

 

Thanks!


 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

(Scott & Cecilie)

 

The phrase “Report only items the library has selected as part of the collection” has been removed from 451 (ebooks); 453 (audio downloadable); 455 (Video downloadable). It was replaced with the following language:

Report only items that have been purchased, leased or licensed by the library, a consortium, the state library, a donor or other person or entity. Included items must only be accessible with a valid library card or at a physical library location; inclusion in the catalog is not required. Do not include items freely available without monetary exchange. Do not include items that are permanently retained by the patron; count only items that have a set circulation period where it is available for their use. Count electronic materials at the administrative entity level; do not duplicate numbers at each branch.

 

“Units of acquisition or purchase” is a way of getting at how much of something a library bought; I don’t think that implies individual selection.

Now I’m wondering if we are using different definitions of the word “selection.” Do you mean title-by-title selection, or does selection mean the act of choosing one product or vendor over another (Zinio with 200 current magazine titles vs. New Vendor with XX current titles).

 

Yes, I think the change in definitions is going to require us to resort Electronic Materials (ebooks, audio and video downloads) and Electronic Collections (databases). The intent with the updated definitions is that you count it individually as materials if you Circulate the item – meaning check it out and check it in. Otherwise, it’s an electronic collection (database).

 

I’m thinking we need to create a decision tree showing what to do with different kinds of stuff.

 

We’ll sort it out. And we can still rework, if needed.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

This issue was basically what I was trying to get to at our caucus last week. Hoopla uses a model where the patron checks an item out for a set period of time. Check out and check in.  However, Hoopla is basically a database with hundreds of thousands of streaming/downloadable items. It was really clear that people at the meeting thought it should count as a database, but it does use the model you are talking about Laura. Hoopla is clearly a database, but its checkout model blurs the definition.

 

To me, selection is the process that the library uses to add items to its collection. Selection is not selecting a database that contains 300,000 items. The library has no input on what any of those items are. Selecting is buying items (of whatever number) based on local need using the library’s collection development policies. Once again, saying that the library needs Hoopla as it fits its patron needs does not automatically mean that the library should count those 300,000 items as part of its collection.

 

I think most library directors understand this difference. I think the problem occurs when counting use. If we say that you can only count use on items added to the collection, the definition of items in the collection becomes important. I think we either need to count all use regardless of format (I disagree with this model) or we have a separate count for database use (my preference). Either way, we need to have something in place that accounts for a major service that libraries are now providing.

 

Maybe I need to sketch out why I feel this way about circulation. Originally, circulation counted the checkout of physical materials – primarily books. Circulation is/was a major indicator of how a library is used and an indication of work performed by staff. Circulation is more than just checking the book out. It is also an about returning the book to the shelf. As I mentioned in an earlier email, I believe that check-in is where most of the actual work occurs during circulation. The library has to process the item as a return, sort it, cart it up, and return it to the shelf. Some parts of this process is automated now, but the work still needs to be done by something or someone. This is the main reason that circulation period doesn’t really matter. It takes as much work to process an item that checks out for 3 days as it does for an item that checks out three weeks. In my world view circulation counts two different things. It counts the patron’s use of the item, and it counts the work involved with making the item available to the patron.

 

With that in mind, adding electronic circulation to the total circulation count is comparing apples to oranges. For the most part, there is no physical work involved in checking out an electronic item. You are counting the use of that item (which is very important) but you do not have corresponding physical work that goes along with that use.

 

I think in my ideal world we would have two separate counts. One count for physical item circulation, and one count for non-physical item circulation.  It think it would become a lot easier to count both if we don’t have to try to figure out how to put them together. I don’t think that will ever happen, but I can dream can’t I?


 

Sam Shaw (NE)

 

(Scott)

 

Since I’m still a relatively new SDC, I mostly just listen and read here, but to me Hoopla seems to me to be one of the easier download services to report. And I’m in the minority to say that while it may or may not be a “database”, I wouldn’t report it as a database. Hoopla has downloadable eBooks, movies, music, audiobooks, and television video. Since none of these individual titles are selected by the library, none would be reported in the library collection (450-460). However, since (as you correctly note) they have a set circulation period (they are “returned”), seems to me that you count them as electronic circulations (552). 552 says to include: “e-books and downloadable electronic video and audio files. … Note: Do not include databases.” So if you count it as a database you don’t count the circulation under 552, but the content in Hoopla includes e-books, electronic audio, and electronic video, and it is “returned”.

 

I had one Hoopla library on last year’s survey, and this is where they reported Hoopla use (552). Ironically, my local library just started offering Hoopla this month, and last night I was able to browse and checked out a video title. The interface is reminiscent of Netflix.


 

Sam Shaw (NE)

 

(Scott)

 

I suppose it helps to read the new definition of 552. Sorry all!

 

I see the confusion on the new 552:

 

“Include circulation only for items counted under Electronic Books (e-books), Audio Downloadable Units and Video Downloadable Units in the Library Collection data 450-460”.

 

Seems to me that this definition change is A-OK if we have a new version of the 459 that did or did not pass. I did vote for the new 552, but in light of the 459 yea or nay, I’m not so sure this was a great idea in retrospect.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

(Sam)

 

My problem with that is we normally only count circulation on items that are part of the library’s collection. To me, Hoopla is a database, and is not counted as part of the collection, therefore also not counted as part of circulation.  The original text of 522 states “Do not include databases.” This was problematic as the definition of database has become rather contentious. The new definition states: “Include circulation only for items counted under Electronic Books (E-Books), Audio-Downloadable Units and Video-Downloadable Units in the LIBRARY COLLECTION data elements 450-460. Do not include items not specified under those definitions.” Since the items in Hoopla are not included on data elements 450-460, the use of those items shouldn’t be reported on line 522.


 

Laura Stone (AZ)

 

(Scott)

 

I’m in agreement that we still have lots to figure out, so my question is to help me better understand what exactly we need to figure out.

 

Why do you figure that the materials that libraries make available through Hoopla are not included in data elements 450-460? The items circulate, and the library (or somebody) paid for them. Isn’t that what the definition requires?

 

I appreciate that you may have valid concerns with including the materials, but as I understand the definition, aren’t we being instructed to do so?

 

I am in agreement that we shouldn’t count an item in one place (electronic collections) and include the circulation someplace else.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

(Laura)

 

I guess the question is whether or not we consider Hoopla to be a database. When I brought that question up at the caucus last week, it was pretty clear that the consensus was that it is a database. My understanding of old element 552 is that if a resource is considered a database, that use should not be counted in element 552. With the new definition, you should only count an item for use on 552 if it is also counted as an E-book or downloadable audio/video on lines 451, 453, and 455. So, while items in Hoopla have a circulation period, Hoopla is still considered a database. Otherwise, libraries could justify adding the hundreds of thousands of items claimed by the service. Hoopla should therefore be reported on line 458 and not on line 552. Or, am I reading this all totally wrong?

 

To answer Laura’s question with a question, how would you count an item for line 451 in the case of Hoopla? Would you say that since 10 e-books checked out, that it would also count as 10 e-books for 451? So in this case, the inclusion in the collection is based on circulation rather than the other way around? Now I’m getting dizzy…


 

Sam Shaw (NE)

 

(Scott)

 

I have at least one library that reports the holdings for 451-453 based on the number of circulations reported in 552. At first, when they explained this to me, I responded with a “huh?”; now I’m not so sure it matters much. I think it does however matter whether or not the item is returned. The old 451 (FY 2014) said to report only “items the library has selected as a part of the collection” (which would seem to exclude patron driven acquisition like we are discussing), but the new definition for 451 removed that language.

 

In most cases (at least in my state), the numbers in 451-455 are always inflated due to reporting of consortia holdings anyway. I suppose the circulation or use numbers portray a more accurate picture of the value of the service (regardless of what you want to call it).


 

Terry Blauvelt (MO)

 

Sorry I’m late to the show, but wasn’t the reason Hoopla was considered a database due to the “selection” requirement? Now that the “selection” requirement is gone, why can’t it be included. All e-books are held in a database format.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I guess this then comes back to my question about what we are counting. Are we just counting use in this case for line 552? Or are we also counting these items from Hoopla as part of the collection for lines 451, 453, 455? If part of the collection, then how are they counted? Just when they are checked out? This is backwards from what it says in the new version of element 552. As a reminder: “Include circulation only for items counted under Electronic Books (E-Books), Audio-Downloadable Units and Video-Downloadable Units in the LIBRARY COLLECTION data elements 450-460. Do not include items not specified under those definitions.” Or, are we saying to count the entire Hoopla collection as part of the library’s collection?

 


 

Terry Blauvelt (MO)

 

It seems to me that the collection aspect of the electronic materials is less pertinent than the usage/circulation. I have a collection of Hot Wheels somewhere in my attic that hasn’t been out of the box in 25 years or more. It’s not really relevant that I have them, since I don’t use them or really know where they are. I know IMLS has a quid pro quo connection with the e-books and circulation, but with the non-ebook materials, usage is really the only thing that is important. However, if we only report the usage in the current categories, we will get a significant number of edits.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

 

I think use and collection goes hand in hand in libraries. If I had a physical item sitting on the shelf for 25 years without checking out, I would weed that item if I was in a public library. If I was paying for a set of E-Books that weren’t getting used, I would stop paying the fee. Of course, that is a more local use of that stat. Maybe it doesn’t apply at our level. That being said, I think that everyone will want to use a consistent definition when counting circ.

 

I can see where electronic item use may be more important that ownership. We may be seeing libraries becoming more of a portal rather than an collection when it comes to electronic materials. In that case we need to count what is important. That is why I think I’m advocating a separation of electronic use from physical use in our total use. We are currently counting two very different services into one total. If we can separate the electronic from the physical, I think it becomes a lot easier to figure out how to count both.


 

Terry Blauvelt (MO)

 

I don’t think there is a weeding process in these large electronic collections (I may be wrong), since the space on a server is all that is taken. In a collection of 300k items, heavy use is normally about 20% (60,000) of items with the most use coming from the same group of materials. Generally, a library can’t opt out of paying for the remaining 80% that sees limited or no use. This would be my argument for not counting an accessible electronic collection separate from the current one database.

 

I would like to see an “electronic usage” category that is separate from 552, not tied to a collection, and not counted elsewhere. I think this is the way to capture Freading, Hoopla, Tumblebooks, etc.


 

Scott Dermont (IA)

(Terry)

 

Normally you should weed electronic items just like physical. The only reasons you may not need to weed would be for condition or possibly space. Other factors would still apply. But if you don’t have control over the collection, weeding is a moot point. This is one of the reasons I like to see libraries maintain their own collections rather than being a portal to another service. Just my old, out of date, view.

 

I do want to see the use of those services that you list. We have decided to go ahead with a count for those items on our survey this year. It will be a separate count – not part of 552. I’ll be curious to see what our definition looks like when we are done. I assume it won’t be perfect, and will need some tweaking. But I’m OK with that.

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.