Search results

Every old library contains an increasing amount of what might be called “dead wood,” which impedes the progress of the student as the dead branches in a pine forest block the way of the walker, and it may well be that in time such dead wood will have to be thinned out and stored away at one side, making a library “wood pile” which can be looked over and drawn upon when necessary but will not constantly cumber the ground.

Library storage is traditionally viewed as a space management strategy, a way of dealing with overcrowded buildings and growing collections. Storage also is implicitly a preservation strategy: an alternative to weeding, cramming books tightly on shelves, stacking them on the floor, or not purchasing them in the first place. Among its obvious preservation benefits, storage provides security from theft and vandalism, and protection from spills and pests caused by increasingly prevalent food and drink in library buildings. Although transfer to storage may be risky for fragile materials, leaving them in stacks that are constantly being shifted is likely to be more damaging. Many storage facilities provide better environmental conditions for collections than old or poorly maintained modern library buildings.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss issues and concerns raised in a collaborative and cooperative central storage facility for Hong Kong academic libraries.

The approach is to propose and to implement a joint storage business plan and a possibility of acting for others to consider similar storage facilities.

Useful experiences have been gained while planning a central storage facility.

The proposed JURA project is for Hong Kong academic libraries.

The sharing of JURA proposal to create a central storage will inform the libraries around the region of the benefits of having a useful facility in the long term.

The paper will inform others wishing to set up collaborative storages on governance, storage systems, business plan, problems and issues in what is still a relatively unexplored approach to storage problems.

The purpose of this paper is to present the Swiss Cooperative Storage Facility, a high bay, high density, automated, and oxygen reduced off-site storage facility which serves five research libraries from the German speaking part of Switzerland; it opened in February 2016.

It describes the complete process of evaluating and planning this innovative facility.

It explains the way the cooperation of the five libraries in highly federalist Switzerland was achieved, what principles guided its organization, and how the libraries prepared their holdings for this off-site storage. It shows the construction as an ecologically driven green building with economical advantages.

The project seems to be the second automated and oxygen-reduced library storage facility worldwide, after the British Library’s Additional Storage Buildings, and the depth and detail of the evaluation phase is new.

The purpose of this study is to report on the challenges and lessons learnt by the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when trying to implement a “resource in common” high‐density storage unit model between Texas A&M University Library and The University of Texas‐Austin Libraries.

The case study draws on the experience of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team when the university funded the creation of a jointly owned remote storage unit, which foundation would rest on a “resource in common” model. The creation of a new library building allowed Texas A&M University Libraries to free up stack space in order to create new learning spaces to meet the needs of the library users. However, as the processing began, initial theories of what a “resource in common” was, how to implement a “resource in common” and resources needed to implement the “resource in common” model began to be questioned. This study examines the lessons learnt when trying to implement a “resource in common” model.

Based on the experiences of the Texas A&M University Libraries' processing team, increased communication and early participation in the decision‐making stages is key when trying to implement a “resource in common” model. This processing team was responsible for updating the MARC records for all the items that were identified to go to the joint storage unit. They recognized that any collaborative venture of this magnitude required an excellent workflow and workload understanding by all parties, including those members of the TAMU Library initial project planning team who were active members on the initial library storage facility oversight committees. This understanding would allow everyone at TAMU involved in the massive project to have a clearer knowledge of the strains caused by the increased workload and could communicate to the full team the obstacles the library would be facing.

This paper introduces the idea of “resource in common” and will be of interest to all libraries facing both space and funding shortages who might be considering building a storage unit. These libraries might consider implementing a “resource in common” model as a way to solve these problems.

Cooperative storage is essentially the sharing of a space within a facility, while collaborative storage implies a shared approach to the collection in terms of growth, shape, management and access. Collaborative storage provides a more efficient use of resources. This study is an investigation of the physical options, rather than of digital storage. However, the study does reflect on the prospective relationship between these two responses. The tension is an emerging issue and one which is not yet placed in the policy context of a local, regional or national perspective.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of current uses of cloud computing (CC) services in libraries, address a gap identified in integrating cloud storage in IaaS level, and show how to use EC2 tools for easy backup and resource monitoring.

The article begins a literature review of CC uses in libraries, organized at the SaaS, PaaS and IaaS levels. The author presents his experience of integrating cloud storage services S3 and GCS. In addition, he also shows how to use virtual machine EC2 tools for backup and monitoring resources.

The article describes a case study of integrating cloud storage using S3 and GCS. S3 can be integrated with any program whether the program runs on cloud or locally, while GCS is only good for applications running on GAE. The limitation of the current GCS approach makes it hard to use for a stand‐alone cloud storage. The author also discusses virtual machines using EC2 and its related tools for backup, increase storage, and monitoring service. These services make system administration easier as compared to the traditional approach.

The article presents current CC uses in libraries at the SaaS, PaaS, and IaaS levels. CC services are changing quickly. For example, Google has stated that its APIs are experimental. Readers should be aware of this.

The author shows his experience of integrating cloud storage services. Readers can understand the similarities and differences between S3 and GCS. In addition, readers can learn the advantages and concerns associated with implementing cloud computing. Readers are encouraged to consider questions such as content, skills, costs, and security.

There are many uses of CC services in libraries. However, gaps are identified: in IaaS cloud storage, a few libraries used Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure, but none explored using Google Cloud Storage (GCS); none provided implementation details, difficulties, and comparisons of S3 and GCS; and a few articles have briefly discussed implementations on Amazon EC2, but have not provided specific details about upgrade and backup. This article addresses those gaps.

This paper aims to provide a case study of the CARM (CAVAL Archival and Research Materials Centre) Centre, a print repository owned and managed by CAVAL, an Australian consortium of academic libraries, based in Melbourne, Australia. The history, business models and operations of the initial module, CARM1, which commenced operations in 1996 and the recently completed module, CARM2 are described. This is preceded by a review of literature addressing the issue of retained or ceded ownership of stored items, and is followed by a discussion of the trend from a shared collection to shared storage within a shared facility.

The approach is descriptive and explanatory. CARM1 was designed for both operations and space utilisation to be managed as economically as possible. This was achieved by storing items in a high density configuration and the collection, now known as the CARM Shared Collection, being owned by the CAVAL consortium. In exploring options for an expanded facility in 2007, a shared storage facility was determined to best meet the qualitative needs of member libraries. This option minimised the set-up and operational costs and required the lowest initial capital. CAVAL constructed a second storage facility, CARM2 which began operations in late 2010.

The CARM Centre demonstrates that variant models for storage configurations and collection ownership can co-exist and meet the differing needs of member libraries within one facility. The need for off-site storage and the terms and conditions under which member libraries are willing to accept it differ widely. CAVAL's approach has been, and continues to be, that each member library makes its own decision and that CAVAL's role to facilitate those decisions while retaining an approach that supports broad-based solutions, be this in the form of a fully integrated shared collection, or a co-ordinated and carefully managed shared storage facility.

This paper will be of interest and value to other organisations or consortia with an interest in the development, business models, implementation and management of shared print repositories that respond to the needs and circumstances of their member libraries.

The purpose of this paper is to offrer a reflective look at PASCAL (Preservation and Access Service Center for Colorado Academic Libraries) in the larger context of off‐site storage facilities and practices

The article includes an analysis based on five key points of cooperative repository projects that were made by Vattulainen. The five points are applied to this case study of PASCAL, a shared collaborative off‐site storage facility.

Concerns are discussed in the five key areas: Concept of ownership, Provision of buildings, Management of repositories, Relegation decisions and User needs,

This article contributes a case study to the discussion of collaborative off‐site storage, with implications for both the immediate region and for larger networked systems that may exist in the future.

Aims to highlight how the complex issue of storage problems is managed within the context of German and Bavarian libraries.

Introduces very briefly the main features of the German scholarly library system, focusing on the aspects of storage and archiving. Then, presents the characteristics and peculiarities of the repository concepts realized on the national and the regional level. For the latter, focuses on Bavaria, which provides perhaps the best example of a working co‐ordinated regional archiving system.

In Germany, establishing a repository library like those in the Scandinavian countries or in the Anglo‐Saxon world seems impossible. In the last few years in the area of storage concepts there has been an avoidance of the idea of central and regional storage libraries. The few existing co‐operative models (examples are to be found in the states of North Rhine Westphalia and Baden‐Württemberg) have failed. In light of experiences thus far, the idea of a more or less self‐sufficient, self‐staffed and independently organized regional storage library must be viewed with scepticism.

A storage library is, at least in Germany, currently only conceivable in the sense of a stacks enlargement project, or in the creation of an additional stacks location for an already existing and already archive‐friendly library. The best example is Bavaria.