1. Preliminaries
1.a. Welcome and introductions
1.b. Goals
and objectives for today’s meeting
Greenstein noted two recurring
themes
running
through
today’s agenda, indicated that these would be highlighted in the
various
contexts of the agenda items, and suggested the possibility of
returning to
these themes at the close of the meeting.
The first of these is the nature of “open,” as
this is used
in such contexts as “open access,” “open source,” “open data,” etc. The goal of such initiatives is one that is
shared by UC, to make scholarly information as widely accessible as
possible. However, public debate often
polarizes these concepts, while the reality is more subtle and nuanced;
a
variety of strategies, including some revenue-generating models, is
likely
necessary in order to maximize access to the most generally valuable
information assets produced by the University.
Thus an important and complex question for SLASIAC
is how to successfully and sustainably encourage and support open
access in a
public research university.
A second theme is the increasing intersection and
convergence of traditionally independent issues around the general
theme of
“academic information.” SLASIAC began with a focus on the libraries
and
means of fostering innovation in scholarly publishing, but the agenda
expanded
to encompass broader issues of scholarly communication, copyright and
other
public policy issues, and the information technology infrastructure
that
provides critical support for the creation, management and use of
academic
information. As the breadth of interest
has broadened, so has the range of stakeholders (on campuses,
systemwide and
externally) who must be consulted. Thus
an emerging challenge, for the University and for SLASIAC,
is how best to organize discussion and action about these
interconnected
issues, define and acknowledge the interdependencies, and identify and
achieve
synergies among them.
2. Libraries and the implications
of mass digitization (Information/Discussion)
PowerPoint
presentation
Robin Chandler,
Director of Data Acquisitions at the California Digital Library,
provided a
presentation that:
- Described how the growth of digital library collections fostered the “Embedded
Library,” which compels us to provide tools and collections in the online
spaces where our users are actually working;
- Provided an update on systemwide mass digitization projects involving two
external partners, Google and the Open Content Alliance; and
- Offered some reflections on future services.
3. Scholarly
Communication
3.a.
Scholars’ copyright management (Update)
3.b. Task
Force on UC-based Scholarly Publishing
(Information/Discussion)
Background: -
Oakley to Dynes, 5/30/06, “Proposed UC Faculty – Scholarly Work
Copyright
Rights Policy” (http://www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/slasiac/110206/
copyright0506.pdf)
- Greenstein
to Hume, 7/6/06, appointment of a working group (http://
www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/slasiac/110206/copyright_advice.pdf)
- Task Force on University Engagement with
Scholarly Publishing (PowerPoint Presentation)
Greenstein remarked that the working group
appointed by the
Provost to develop a draft policy on scholars’ copyright management had
only
recently held its first meeting, and therefore there was nothing to
report. Greenstein reminded the
committee that the proposal to appoint a task force under SLASIAC to
review
UC’s scholarly publishing activities had been endorsed at the May 2006
meeting,
and turned the discussion over to Candee and Withey.
They reported on findings to date and led a
discussion of the needs and opportunities to align scholarly
communication and
publishing more closely with the University’s research enterprise and
research
support infrastructure.
In discussion, SLASIAC members recommended that
the Task
Force:
- Think beyond the traditional institutional driver of the economic crisis
in scholarly communication, and focus on the needs of the research community
- Define their scope broadly, to include communications needs other than
formal publishing and solutions that might lie outside existing organizations
like the Press
- Consider
a range of revenue models, including donor subsidies
- Lay out choices clearly, with at least some indication of quantities and
costs
- In consultation with the Vice Chancellors for Research, ascertain how a
suite of research-related communication and publishing services might be embedded
in campus research support infrastructure
- Consult with campus IT organizations, where faculty have often already
presented their cases for institutional support of technology-based communication
- Consider whether there might be two models for formal communication and
publication, one that supports dissemination of research and another that
supports promotion and tenure, and whether one model might be more ripe, or
a higher priority, for institutional support than the other (NOTE: the scholarly
communication research of the UCB Center for Studies in Higher Education,
at http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication/index.htm,
was mentioned as germane to this point)
4. Stewardship of
digital information resources
4.a.
Digital preservation program (Information)
PowerPoint
presentation
Cruse presented an overview of the
UC
Libraries’
digital
preservation program and discussed some of the critical issues and
challenges
facing the problem, including engaging the faculty in digital
preservation,
development of tools for analysis of archived content, and copyright
issues. In discussion, committee members
touched on issues related to electronic theses and dissertations,
opportunities
for digitization of unique and valuable archival material held by the
UC
libraries, and the challenges of fostering better collaboration across
campus
organizations in order to achieve economies of scale in digital
archiving.
4.b. Information Technology Guidance
Committee progress (Information/Discussion)
Reference: ITGC Web
site, http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/itgc/
Greenstein reported that the ITGC is currently in
the
fact-gathering stage, concentrating on six primary focus areas, and
consulting
broadly within UC. Campus visits have
revealed both a sense of urgency about working together as a system and
a
degree of mutual distrust. There is some
willingness to co-invest in common solutions, but only with a
demonstrable
commitment from UCOP, in the form of funding, infrastructure, and staff
support. Advantages of systemwide IT
investments are seen to include competitive advantage, affordance of
capabilities that are too expensive for any single campus, development
of a
consistent framework to control delegation and decentralization (most
evident
in the human resources information systems area), and reduction of
irrational
redundancies. Some consensus is emerging
that systemwide investments should be focused on common infrastructure
components where campus excellence confers no competitive advantage,
thereby enabling
campuses to redirect local resources to developments that enhance
distinctiveness. The common elements
garnering the greatest attention at the moment are the network
infrastructure,
a UC Grid of interoperable computational resources and services, core
business
systems, shared development upon a foundation of common standards and
practices, and flexible funding models that support and encourage
collaboration.
5. Legal, regulatory,
and policy issues affecting scholarly information
5.a. Academic Affairs policy
analysis capability (Information/Discussion)
Background: -
Wartella to Hume, 6/16/06, SLASIAC recommendations related to the
policy
environment for scholarly communication (http://www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/
slasiac/110206/x-SLASIAC_WRH_policy_environment.pdf)
- Hume to
Wartella, 7/13/06, endorsing SLASIAC
recommendations (http://www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/slasiac/110206/x-WRH_EW_policy_environment.pdf)
- The Public Policy Environment for Academic and Scholarly Information.
Discussion Paper, revised 5/4/06 (http://www.slp.ucop.edu/consultation/
slasiac/110206/x-public_policy_environment_dp_1b.doc)
Lawrence
reviewed the decisions taken at the May 2006 SLASIAC meeting to endorse
broader
engagement with the public policies affecting academic use of
information,
reported on progress to date in developing an expanded staff capability
to
address these issues, and asked the committee’s advice on the scope of
engagement for this new staff capability.
The committee generally recommended limiting the charge to areas
where
the academic and policy issues were well understood and the need for
action
generally recognized, chiefly in copyright and related areas.
ACTION: SLASIAC members will send
Greenstein the names of personnel on their campuses who have copyright-related
responsibilities.
5.b. UCOL
issues related to copyright and fair use
(Information/Discussion)
5.b.i.
Developing a University position on
fair use
5.b.ii.
Provision of guidance to faculty on
fair use issues
Background: Draft letter, from SLASIAC
member and UCOL Chair Ben Crow to SLASIAC Chair Wartella, re: fair use guidelines/policy,
11/2/06 (Word document)
Leonard, who had participated
in the University Committee on Library conference call in which this
matter was
discussed, read the key portions of Crow’s letter (which was not
available to
be distributed at the meeting) and led discussion.
Lawrence pointed out that (a) the revised SLASIAC charge accompanying the merger of SLASIAC and the Standing Committee on
Copyright
mandated the formation of a standing subcommittee on copyright policy,
and (b)
prior to the merger of the committees, the SCC had started work on a
review and
update of the University’s 1986 Policy and Guidelines on the
Reproduction of
Copyrighted Materials for Teaching and Research (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/4-29-86.html). The Committee concluded that organizing the SLASIAC subcommittee and charging them to
continue
their work on the 1986 policy would be a reasonable first step toward
addressing UCOL’s concerns.
ACTION: - Chair Wartella will write
to Crow reporting SLASIAC’s resolution of UCOL’s request.
- Staff will
work with the Chair to
organize the Standing Subcommittee on Copyright Policy
6. Review
and next steps
Wartella observed that the challenges presented by
all the
areas discussed today revolved around promoting cross-functional
coordination
among the numerous functional “silos” of campus and systemwide
organization. In its broadening role,
SLASIAC needs to address strategies for organizing discussion and
integrating
response among these silos, even if the result is only to acknowledge
and
document these problems for the attention of more senior authorities. The Committee endorsed Wartella’s suggestion
that the committee set aside time at its Spring 2007 meeting to discuss
these
matters, and that it invite a panel of knowledgeable contributors from
the
campuses and UCOP to fertilize the discussion.