a library information system resource sharing project

8/8/2019 A Library Information System Resource Sharing Project

1/19

A LIBRARY INFORMATION SYSTEM

RESOURCE SHARING PROJECT

Naomi C. Broering

Medical Center LibraryGeorgetown University

Washington, DC 20007, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: Library Information System, Resource Sharing, Internet, Electronic Mail,E-mail, Document Delivery, Library Management Information System, DigitalImages, New Generation Information System, OPAC, Online Public Access Catalog,Databases, Medical Library, Georgetown University, MEDLINE, US Department ofEducation - College Library Technology and Cooperation Grants Program.

Abstract: In 1992, the Dahlgren Memorial Library at Georgetown Universityreceived a Grant to launch a three year Library Information System (LIS) ResourceSharing Project from the US Department of Education. The project enablesGeorgetown to spearhead a collaborative program with a consortium of 41 libraries todesign several dynamic, "next generation" library system modules. The consortium,founded in 1986 to engage in joint LIS development activities, is known as theFriends of LIS (FLIS).

The project goals are to enhance electronic access and improve delivery ofinformation in various print and non-print formats for resource sharing, and through

this advanced system, improve medical education, research and patient care. There arefour project objectives: (1) Create Internet Access to Share Databases; (2) AccelerateTransmission of Documents to Users; (3) Provide OPAC Access to Digi-tizedImages; (4) Generate Outcomes and Evaluations by developing a LibraryManagement Information System (LMIS). The well qualified George-town projectstaff were joined by a Project Design Advisory Panel comprised of FLIS Board andTask Force members.

The project implications and significance are profound in potentially changing thelibrary service paradigm and shaping delivery of information in the future. Unique

project features are use of Internet not only to access other library catalogs, but tohave a central menu of FLIS databases with transparent transfer capabilities to

whatever data-base a user chooses regardless of geographic location. Automaticonline access to document delivery directly from a literature search is provided fromminiMEDLINE, Current Contents, Bioethicsline and the OPACs. An innovativemilestone under deve-lopment is the search and display of images through the onlinecatalog. Users will navigate easily, unaware of the underlying technical complexities.Another significant milestone is the development of a Library ManagementInformation System (LMIS) to allow the FLIS libraries to organize data efficiently,improve their reports and complete national library association questionnaires such as

ARL and AAHSLD. Georgetowns commitment is demonstrated by its generous


2/19

contribution to the project from its scarce operational funds and resources. Withoutthe grant this project could not become a reality.

This paper focuses on the project accomplishments of the first year and covers plans

for the second and third year.

1. INTRODUCTION

Todays practice of medicine is extremely information-intensive. Health scienceprofessionals depend heavily on access to varied information resources to make intelligentand informed choices for education, patient care management and research protocols (Davis,1987).

Libraries and librarians who serve medical clientele face a paradox. Health sciencedisciplines are highly specialized, yet users need a broad, multi-disciplinary approach.Information and know-ledge continue to grow exponentially, but the purchasing power ofresource dollars to build collec-tions have decreased. Library collection growth hasstabilized, user information demands have escalated. Library measures to maintain self-sufficiency are laudable, but unrealistic goals (Broer-ing, 1986).

Several authors have addressed these contradictions and have concluded that the solution forlibraries and users lies in building and strengthening networks and engaging in resourcesharing projects. In 1975, de Gennaro suggested that the emphasis for libraries should shiftfrom holdings and size to access and services. At that time, he predicted that computertechnology would have its greatest payoff for libraries as a tool to assist librarians indeveloping and operating networks and other mechanisms for resource sharing (De Gennaro,1975). Similarly, Kronick (1982) reached the conclusion that libraries can no longer affordself-sufficiency and he suggested that a more attainable goal is "mutual sufficiency"(Kronick, 1982). The growing resource sharing trend of the 1970s and 1980s, which is even

more feasible today through high performance computers and networks, is bound to becomean essential part of library operations in the 1990s.

At Georgetown University, for example, the Dahlgren Memorial Library has undertaken thetask of developing a Knowledge Network that provides access to a family of bibliographic,informa-tion, diagnostic and research databases. The strategy was developed in 1985 as partof a multi-phasic, ten year project supported by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to

plan, develop and imple-ment an Integrated Academic Information Management System(IAIMS). It has further enhanced cooperative endeavors with the medical libraries that usethe Georgetown Library Infor-mation System (LIS). Collaborations with these institutions

began in the mid-1980s and have increased rapidly since 1990. Some of the most notable

features are the Dahlgren Librarys ability to design functional models for the integrated

LIS, to develop educational software that integrates print and non-print materials, and toexpand the IAIMS Knowledge Network of health sciences databases. Through the IAIMSnetwork, users at Georgetown are also linked to other university resources including thecollections of all campus libraries (law, medical and main campus). The two paths of LIS and

IAIMS have served to expand the librarys traditional role in information management and

now places it in a position to explore even further (Broering 1988; Broering, 1985).

2. THE PROJECT: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES


3/19

The Dahlgren Library was awarded a grant from the College Library Technology andCoopera-tion Grants Program of the Department of Education in 1992. Under this program

the Dahlgren Library launched a three year Library Information System (LIS) ResourceSharing Project to pro-vide electronic access and delivery of information in varying formats

to a consortium of libraries that all use the Georgetown University LIS. The project designinclude a collaborative network of databases, document delivery, digitized images and an

information management system to extend services to LIS user libraries.

The LIS consortium is a users group called Friends of LIS (FLIS). The 40 FLIS libraries (27member and 13 affiliated) use the same integrated library system and share a commonmission, interest and need. FLIS engaged in a planning process for nearly two years toidentify current and future library system needs. They placed high priority on economic

measures for the 1990s, and the intent was to join forces by linking to one anotherssystems and consolidate the limited resour-ces. As a group the plan was to provide access tomore information and databases than they could get as a single library. They recognized the

benefit and strengths of collaborating to develop new services previously unavailable to theirpatrons. Georgetown agreed to serve as project leader and to design and develop specialmodules that were identified by the FLIS consortium. *

The introduction of new low cost information technologies offers an opportunity to applypowerful new tools to enhance the role of the library in the Information Age. The LIS,developed in 1981 by Georgetown, enabled us to examine technical methods of addressingunmet user needs. Because LIS has been shared with other medical libraries since 1982, and

because Georgetown is committed to the concept of resource sharing, the 28 participatinglibraries have an ideal environment for a successful collaborative project. The aim of the LISuser libraries is to develop a "next genera-tion" system (LIS NET II) that will incorporateadditional databases, new formats and networking features needed to meet current and futuredemands of users.

The GOALS of the project are:

To improve medical education, research and patient care by expanding the LibraryInfor-mation System (LIS), an integrated system, used by over 40 medical libraries.

To enhance access to and delivery of information by providing LIS memberlibraries and their users with access to the collective resources and informationformats at Georgetown and the FLIS libraries.

LIS needs enhancements that will facilitate transparent network access to large databaseshoused at Georgetown and at member libraries. To accomplish the project LIS also needscapa-bilities for electronically transmitting requests and documents to users, for providing

access beyond traditional print collections to non-print materials, for digitizing and indexingimages of medical slides to access through the online catalog, and lastly, for evaluating andreporting use of the enhanced system by means of a library management information system.

To accomplish the project there are four OBJECTIVES:

Create Internet Access to Share Databases.

Accelerate Transmission of Documents to Users.


4/19

Provide OPAC Access to Digitized Image Collections.

Generate Outcomes and Evaluations via a Library Management Information

System (LMIS).

In this project, Georgetown and the FLIS libraries are using the IAIMS network capabilities

to provide access to their systems for resource sharing purposes. The economic benefits areimmense, but most exciting to the library community is the resulting image lifting potentialfor the participating libraries. As LIS libraries provide more automated services, their rolewithin their own institution will be continually strengthened because the collective resourceswill become indispensable to users. Working cooperatively through on-going collaborations,the libraries will design highly useful LIS modules, offer more services, and make greateraccomplishments than they would achieve as a single unit.

In establishing itself as a "library system of the future," the LIS has embraced computers andtelecommunications networks by investing heavily today for a potential "pay-off" tomorrow.

The strategy is to continue the momentum begun in the 1980s by engaging in innovativeprojects that allows the libraries to continually develop new services. This project offers theprospect of enrich-ing and strengthening the role of the LIS libraries, but more importantly,of developing a system univer-sally useful to a broad range of users throughout the country.

This resource sharing project is an outgrowth of a long tradition of cooperation and consortialarrangements among the FLIS institutions. It is a natural extension of services which thelibraries have been providing for each other throughout the past two decades. Technically,LIS is an integra-ted system which includes circulation, public catalog, acquisitions, serialsmanagement and biblio-graphic databases. Although interlibrary lending and borrowingoccur daily through the Regional Medical Library (RML) program, the LIS user librariesintend to exceed these traditional services and offer a variety of high technology services.They intend to share access to databases such as the LIS online catalog, MEDLINE, Current

Contents, Bioethicsline, PDQ, drug information systems dia-gnostic systems and other in-house databases.

A few are described below:

The Library Information System (LIS) The online public access catalogincludes all the print and non-print holdings of the library. It also includes software,audio visuals and computer. The LIS is based on a MARC record and uses the NLMMESH vocabulary.

The miniMEDLINE SYSTEM a self-service bibliographic searchsystem based on the NLM MEDLINE files, was developed for users in 1982. It began

with reference cita-tions, but was expanded in 1985 to include abstracts. The library iscurrently installing full MEDLINE on the miniMEDLINE software. The next logicalstep, to provide access to full-text is imminent.

The Alerts/Current Contents search system comprised of the Institutefor Scien-tific Information (ISI)Current Contents tapes was designed in 1986. Thedatabase has all five section of Current Contents.


5/19

In-House Databases implemented from 1986 to the present include: The Micro-Medex Drug Information System, several drug and toxicity indexes, this includesthe Physicians Desk Reference (PDR), Physicians Data Query (PDQ), a cancertreatment protocol system from the National Cancer Institute, RECONSIDER, adiagnostic promp-ting system from the University of California, San Francisco, and aseries of Molecular Biology databases including: GENBANK and the Protein

Identification Registry Sequence databases of the National Biomedical ResearchFoundation at Georgetown.

Stedmans Medical Dictionary was installed in 1992 as an experimentalsystem. This dictionary is used by the Georgetown medical students. With onlineaccess the students do not being heir dictionaries to the campus.

Medical Facts File a full-text database of commonly requested information begunin 1989 with a module on instruction to authors for publishing in medical journals.

An "Electronic Textbook" in Human Physiology a Macintosh based educationalsystem that integrates text, images, animation and voice. The modules include thecardiac, renal, and endocrine systems.

A Microanatomy Digital Slide Library of nearly 500 images used by medicalstudents.

3. PRELIMINARY PLANNING

Concerted planning was undertaken two years ago to determine the parameters, feasibilityand technologies for an expanding LIS that would address next generation user needs. The

project builds on Georgetowns past experience, those of other FLIS members and our

findings. We examined various suitable technologies and reviewed the current literature onother library systems, library resource sharing and existing networks (Arms, 1990a-c; Armset al, 1988; Britten, 1990, Herzog, 1990; Lynch, 1989).

In the May 1991 FLIS meeting, a presentation to the FLIS board and full membership on theGeorgetown vision for enhancing LIS. It included a program to develop LIS II which hasnow become known as LIS NET II. The presentation included an outline of future plans, withhandouts covering the ideas of the FLIS tasks forces and the meeting attendees.

After further technical planning, in November 1991, a second presentation was given at theFLIS mid-year meeting. It included additional details on what Georgetown could develop inthe future. Because Georgetown does not have the financial resources to design the

programming work, it was decided to write the grant proposal to cover part of thedevelopment costs; i.e. personnel, equipment and other related costs. The FLIS chair, TrudyGardner, PhD, Library Director, Rush University, provided invaluable input to this author,and the member libraries agreed to endorse the proposal. The FLIS Board and selected FLISTask forces are serving as a Project Design Advisory Panel (see Figure 1).

What was envisioned for the LIS II system were capabilities in which the following scenariocould become a reality:Scenario of the Vision: It is after midnight. A patient at an inner city hospital goes into crisis


6/19


7/19

The development of the LIS Resource Sharing Project is an inevitable step for the decade ofthe 1990s. The libraries already have three key components in place, unique information

resources, institutional capabilities to provide online systems, and institutional internalnetworks. The task that remains is to link their unique resources across geographical

boundaries and provide users with the broadest access possible to the ever increasing body ofbiomedical knowledge (Hunter, 1984; Koska, 1990; Walker and Thoma, 1990; Yamamoto

and Wiebe, 1989).

Georgetown plans to carry out the project by involving ten FLIS Libraries in one or more ofthe proposed objectives. They will assist in the development and testing of the prototypemodules. Later when the system becomes fully developed, plans are to implement it at theremaining FLIS libraries. A three year schedule has been developed for the following phases:

Phase I: Create Internet Access to Shared Databases

Phase II: OPAC Access to Digitized Images

Phase III: Generate Outcomes and Evaluations

Phase I: Create Internet Access to Shared Databases

To develop access capabilities the first step was to convene a meeting of the FLIS TaskForces whose responsibilities include: (1) Gateways/E-Mail; (2) miniMEDLINE and CurrentContents databases; (3) Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery; (4) Online Public AccessCatalog; and (5) Statistics/Reports. The meeting provided a forum to discuss aspects ofimplementation, allow active participation of member libraries at all stages, and alert

participants to technical problems that could be encountered.

The participating libraries experimenting on Internet access are:

University of Tennessee at Memphis;

Medical University of South Carolina at Charleston;

Rush University in Chicago;

University of Texas at San Antonio; and

Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

The choices of databases and the menu to be developed is similar to the existing Knowledge

Network menu used at Georgetown. However; the final menu will include only thosedatabases selected by the participating libraries.

- Internet Access: Protocols were developed to establish technical parameters and

routing/switching pathways required for Internet Access by participating libraries. The userlibraries will enter through Internet to the Georgetown system where the central FLIS menuwill display database choices. They will have access to the Knowledge Network and to theFLIS OPACs and other selected databases (Figure 2) Pathways will be established to provideusers with access to a


8/19

particular library or to a specific database. Specifications will be developed for routingrequests and switching from one FLIS site to another (Figure 3).


9/19

Figure 3: Internet Access to Shared Databases

- Implement Document Delivery System at FLIS Sites: In the first year,George-towndeveloped a Document Delivery System (DDS) module as a component of the LIS for

delivery of photocopied articles and interlibrary loan services. The DDS is linked toGeorgetowns Online Catalog, miniMEDLINE, and Current Contents databases. Currently,users conduct searches and select the document delivery command to request an article or

book. All transactions are conducted electronically. In most cases, facsimile transmission isused to transmit articles and book chapters within the Georgetown campus and externaldestinations. The DDS module is also being imple-mented at two FLIS libraries, in order totest remote delivery. This means three libraries will have the DDS during the project.

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Southern Illinois University

Georgetown University

- Provide Links from LIS Databases to a FAX Service: The DDS links from the LISOnline Catalog and the miniMEDLINE databases to a FAX service. Links will also be

provided to the Current Contents database for the two participating FLIS libraries. The twoFLIS libraries participating in this aspect of the project will be able to request documentsfrom Georgetown or, in turn, provide Georgetown and each other with documents. Thetransmission mode will be done via the Internet Access. Georgetown will train the library


10/19

staff to use the DDS.

Phase II. Provide OPAC Access to Digitized Images

Georgetown will test the concept of providing online digitized images at a user workstation,locally, as well as transmitting via the Internet Access. We reviewed the literature ontechnical aspects of image management and transmission. Technology is available with"windowing" capabilities to provide text and images simultaneously and still retain theintegrity of high-quality resolution needed in medical images (Seloff, 1990; Stone andSylvain, 1990; Keefe, 1990;

Buckland, 1991; Besser, 1990; Lynch, 1991).

Georgetown has digitized a library of 500 microscopic anatomy slides and a portion of theCiba/Geigy medical illustration slides. Each slide will be cataloged to provide bibliographiccontrol for individual images and easy subject access for users through the LIS Online

Catalog. George-town also has other digitized image projects in development, including the"Electronic Textbook in Human Physiology" and the "SuperPATH" educational software. Allthese projects are Macintosh based. Georgetown and Cornell plan to experiment on indexingand accessing digitized images through their library OPAC.

Even though we are beginning with slides, the Image Workstation is important for librariesbecause it can be adapted to several types of library materials, i.e., full text, slides,educational items, pictures, archives and medical instruments or museum objects. The

procedures for scanning, index-ing, storing and transmitting involve similar technical issues(See Figure 4).

Currently, we are developing search/retrieval software for the digitized images. Searchroutines will be consistent with the OPAC. In the "Sending" stage, images have to be


11/19

compressed, stored, and retrieved. In the "Receiving" stage, the images must bedecompressed and displayed. FLIS will provide input and project staff at Georgetown will

program, test, and modify the software before releasing.

At Georgetown, a microanatomy image slide library is stored on a Macintosh server (SeeFigure 5). Each fully cataloged image will have a bibliographic record in the Online Catalog

which is available on a VAX minicomputer. At a Macintosh Workstation, an item numberthat is part of the catalog record, will be used to retrieve an image. In the second year, twoMacintosh machines will be installed for the project, one at Georgetown and one at Cornell,as OPAC workstations.

Phase III. Generate Outcomes and Evaluations


12/19

A major component of this project is the development of a mechanism by which the use ofnew technology in information access and transfer can be measured in a meaningful,

efficient, and con-sistent manner. It is imperative that systems do more than simply collectuse statistics. The various components of a complex, integrated system, such as the LIS, must

have flexibility to collect and analyze the data continually being generated from multipledatabases, sites, and situations. Ques-tions often raised in this time of reduced budgets and

rising costs are: Does the rapid access to information really improve patient care? Is themedical student of today better informed to solve clinical problems because of tools such ascomputers and online databases? Does a new, high-cost technology machine really improvethe quality of research output? Libraries that provide informa-tion services are being askedsimilar questions and hard facts are needed to prove that the library plays an essential role.

Georgetowns solution is to develop a system based on the foundation begun in LIS and addcomponents for data that are tedious to obtain or currently gathered manually. The planning

began in year one, and design and development will occur throughout the project period.

- Plans to Design a Library Management Information System (LMIS) : The first step is toreview how statistics are being gathered for each of the LIS operational modules anddetermine what aspects of library services are not being covered. Members of the FLIS Task

Force for Statistics/Reports are providing valuable input for this aspect. The following outlinesummarizes some of the key components that will be incorporated into the design of aLibrary Management Information System: (See Figure 6)

Reference and User Services Circulation Services Document Delivery

Desk Queries Collection Use: High/Low Photocopy

User Education Clientele Served Interlibrary Loan

Patron ID Reserve Materials FAX

Fees Stack Maintenance Full Text


13/19

Mediated Searches Learning Resources Education Services

Publications Facility Management Instruction Schedules

Collections EquipmentClasses

Catalog Data Collections Curriculum

Acquisitions Schedules Support

Serials Instruction External Education

Bindery Administration Syllabi

Vendors Facility/Space

Accounts Equipment/Network

Staffing/Personnel

Budgets

The Georgetown project staff and the FLIS Task Force on statistics will design the LMISprocedures. They are waiting for the task force to provide system content. The programmerswill write routines and links to interface with commercial Macintosh software to manipulateand analyze the data for report generation. As in the other phase of this project, Georgetownwill test the new software before it is shared with the other libraries. Modifications andchanges will be made, as needed.

The following three FLIS sites will test the LMIS software:

Hahnemann University

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

Georgetown University

Throughout the entire three year project period all the FLIS sites participating with George-town will be responsible to monitor system use and collect statistics for each of the majoractivities in which they are involved. Georgetown has an electronic Bulletin Board as part ofLIS and will encourage FLIS sites to transmit their statistical reports and summaries

electronically at periodic intervals.

- Evaluate Outcomes Using LMIS: During Phase 3 we will evaluate the first two pro-jectPhases separately. We recognize that the outcomes of the Phase I implementation of InternetAccess to FLIS libraries contains aspects that are different than the Phase 2 activity of

providing access to digitized images through OPACs.


14/19

We will use the LMIS as an opportunity to gather pertinent information on overall library useand services and match this to questions posed to library users and library staff, relating to

elec-tronic transmission of biomedical information. As an example, we will gather data onInternet Access and then query users about ease of use, timeliness, and if the databases

answer their imme-diate information needs. The LMIS will provide hard data on use volumewhich we can match to information-seeking patterns. For the users of the digitized images,

such as medical students, we will want to see how the combined use of text and imageschanges their study habits. The questions posed to library directors will focus on the LMISand the concept of resource sharing, whether the project outcomes make a significant impacton their quality and effectiveness of management reports.

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

- Project Team: The project is being conducted by a team of six Georgetown participantsincluding three librarians and three computer scientists. In addition, the FLIS Board and TaskForce members shown in figure 1 are comprised of knowledgeable leaders with skills andexpertise in the fields required for the project.

- Budget and Cost Effectiveness: The $181,000 for the 3 year period covers partial supportfor the project. Georgetown is contributing $429,876 which is 222% of the total Federalfunds requested. No salary support is requested for the project director and the senior project

participants who are contributing their time. The grant covers salary support for 3 yearstotaling $59,689 for 2 project programmers. The remaining funds cover the purchase ofequipment workstations for the participating libraries software, networking and other relatedexpenses.

Figure 7: Project Organization

6. EVALUATION


15/19

There are several aspects of evaluation appropriate to the project that lend themselves toobjec-tive and quantifiable data. First, is the actual use of the new modules, the network, the

electronic document delivery, image workstations and the information management system,and the second is the usefulness of the enhanced capabilities. In the third year, to measure

these project outcomes we will:

Monitor system use on Internet access

Gather and analyze data, on use

Evaluate Network Access and system performance

Evaluate the Digitized Images

Evaluate the Library Management Information System

7.DISCUSSION AND SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed project opens new windows of opportunities for FLIS libraries to strengthenjoint use of resources, future use of technologies, the role of libraries in the information fieldand the ability to electronically transfer data on demand from wherever it is located.

Cost Factors: The FLIS consortium is particularly sensitive to the increased cost of libraryservices, especially collection resources. A stabilized, non growth budget and decreased

purchasing power from the devalued US dollar have eroded the collection developmentprograms and forced us to drop a number of key journal titles. If you consider the problem

from the libraries perspective, the network/resource sharing project is especially attractivein the current environment. Ready access to the databases at Georgetown, and the large

collections at many FLIS libraries will help close the information gap at our institutions andprovide our library users with expanded resources. Georgetown is not the only library withthis problem. The participating libraries share similar thoughts. From their point of viewGeorgetown offers many services through the network which they do not have; especiallyattractive is access to the family of health databases. With electronic systems, geographicfactors are no longer a barrier. Previously, without a network, these capabilities were nonexistent.

Technical Advances: From the technological approach, Georgetown is unable to solelyfinance the new modules needed to design a suitable resource sharing program. For example,although Georgetown has the databases and a totally electronic document delivery system, itis a quantum leap from the typical services we offer today. New program routines,

communications interfaces, image data transfer, and compression protocols and reportgenerators for statistical data gathering will require financial support to undertake. Toimagine that a user could enter a request, search for it on the online system, and if notavailable, push a few keys on a computer to request transmission electronically seems almostunbelievable. Unimaginable also is the capability to look up slide images online. The fact isthat the technology can accommodate these delivery systems, but the reality is that until nowit has been beyond anything the library could accomplish and it requires funding to attain.Because of fiscal constraints and the moderate size of the FLIS libraries, including


16/19

Georgetowns Dahlgren Library, none were able to absorb all of the cost for this endeavor.The grant has enabled us to share equipment, resources and facilities more efficiently thanever imagined.

Once the network access is established between the participating libraries and 2-way commu-nication is readily available, a number of by-products and uses will emerge, such as the

ability to transmit and receive messages, conferencing capability, and access to the in-housedatabases unique to each library.

The interesting phenomenon about libraries is that although the parent institutions are often in

competition with each other, the libraries have long traditions of sharing resources. There hasbeen concern in the academic community about the growing competition in America todayand the long range effects it might have on universities and libraries. This networking projectis one valuable means of fostering and encouraging continuing cooperative library programs.

Resource sharing: With electronic network capabilities which utilizes state-of-the-artequipment we can solve barriers to accessing disparate databases and computers and provideunique information resources of interest to other libraries. The Georgetown University (TM)Library Information System (LIS), begun locally and expanded into a truly national network,is an example of automation software developed by one library that is being shared by over40 libraries nationally. The LIS is, even today, already linked electronically via a bulletin

board and conferencing system. The LIS is based on similar software and hardware platformsmaking compatibility manageable. The challenge of this project is to take a leadership role inextending resource sharing to arenas not previously considered and examining the results inthe evaluation. The key will be in designing appropriate software, gateway interfaces,integrating unique images and database management systems. This system could demonstrateto others the potential for expansion into local, regional and a national network. The project isconsistent with the proposed National Research and Educa-tion Network (NREN), and theHigh Performance Computer and Communications Act sponsored by Senator Gore and other

Congressional leaders to develop an electronic highway for the nation. It will give the FLISlibraries an opportunity to test the concept of electronic resource sharing further amonglibraries that have a great deal in common.

8. CONCLUSION

The Dahlgren Library at Georgetown University, in conjunction with FLIS, initiated the con-cept of the LIS Resource Sharing Project to focus on a need among libraries to improveacademic excellence by enhancing library resources. We all face challenging economic issuestoday and the network will allow us to extend our limited resources and even expand ourservices by facilitating access to large research collections and provide our patrons withimmediate access to new electronic databases and new formats. The collections of the FLIS

libraries have much in common, yet there are sufficient differences and academic benefits tobe gained by expanded sharing among the institutions. For example, The University of TexasHealth Sciences Library at San Antonio, the University of South Carolina, Texas College ofOsteopathic Medicine, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey haveacademic programs that extend into allied health sciences such as pharmacy, public health,osteopathy, dentistry, and nursing.

A dynamic network/resource sharing project brings an added dimension to the Librarysmission of supporting academic programs. It allows specialized information resources


17/19

available from external sources to be accessed directly by users at another library . Servicebarriers to information transfer can be eliminated so that users can search and find materials

they need. In addition, the network provides the opportunity to offer new and specializedinformation services in the future.

The electronic network will provide the means to eliminate some of the barriers to

information access and exchange. Users will be able to overcome some of the hurdles theynow experience in seeking information from remote libraries. If users are in a rush forinformation, they often find it necessary to drive to another geographic location to seek theitem they need. The network approach we propose through the Internet will eliminate thatdrudgery. To electronically transmit data or send a facsimile over communication linesrapidly will change the speed with which the library can deliver information and the wayuniversity faculty and students can engage in research, education and patient care. It willresult in higher services from the library and it will allow users to concentrate on theirresearch, academic and patient activities rather than locating the needed material. We believethis project will greatly enhance the practice of medicine and will improve health caredelivery at the patients bedside.

Specialized information databases such as those at Georgetown and FLIS libraries offer anadded dimension to the Librarys mission of providing access to information in support ofongoing and new academic programs. Most libraries are able to provide general resources totheir clientele, but the specialized, seldom used, or unique information resources present a

problem in an era of shrinking resource dollars. Access to the database alone offers greateconomic and academic strengths to the institutions. The network approach identified in our

proposal offers a possible solution to the financial dilemma of adding new databases faced bythe institutions. The image and information management system introduces a whole new areaof academic library services that can now be made available. Gathering this information(pictures, slides and statistics) has been a tedious manual process that can now be automated.

Major emphasis is placed in this project to broaden the base of knowledge and create an envi-ronment for a consortium of libraries to access and share each others unique informationresources.

REFERENCES

Arms, C.R., "BITNET. Internet. Digital Library System."Online, 14,(5):,15-22 (September1990).

Arms, C.R., ed. Campus Strategies for Libraries and Electronic Information. EDUCOM

Strategies Series on Information Technologies. Maynard MA: Digital Press, 1990. 404 pp.

Arms, C.R., "Using the National Networks: BITNET and the Internet,"Online, 14 (5): 24-29(September 1990).

Arms, W.Y. and Holzhauser, L.D., "Mercury: An Electronic Library," OCLC Newsletter, pp.15-18 (September-Octob er 1988).


18/19

Besser, H.,"Visual Access to Visual Images: The UC Berkerley Image DatabaseProject,"Library Trends, 38 (4): 787-98 (Spring 1990).

Britten, W.A., "BITNET and the Internet: Scholarly Networks for Libraries," College andResearch Libraries News, 51 (2): 103-7 (February 1990).

Broering, N.C., "An Integrated Academic Information Management System (IAIMS) atGeorge-town University," inMEDINFO 86: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on

Medical Informatics, Washing-on DC, October 1986. pp. 930-941.

Broering, N.C., "The miniMEDLINE SYSTEM: A Library-Based End-User Search System,"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 73 (2): 138-45 (April 1985).

Broering N.C., Mistry, P., and Bagdoyan. H. Biotechnology andBiomedical Knowledge Net-work: Integrated Academic Information Management System at Georgetown University

Medical Center(brochure). Washington DC: Georgetown University, August 1988.

Buckland, M.K., "Information Retrieval of More Than Text,"Journal of the AmericanAssociation for Information Science, 42 (8): 586-88 (September 1991).

Davis, R.M., "Where Will Technology Put the Library of the 21st Century?" Bulletin of theMedical Library Association, 75 (1): 1-6 (January 1987).

De Gennaro, R., " Austerity, Technology and Resources Sharing: Research Libraries Face theFuture,"Library Journal, 100 (10): 17-23 (May 15, 1975).

Herzog, K., "Collection Development for the Electronic Library," Computers in Libraries, 10(10): 9-13 (November 1990).

Hunter, K.A., "Electronic Delivery of Scientific Information,"Drexel Library Quarterly, 20(3): 75-86 (Summer 1984).

Keefe, J.M., "The Image as Document: Descriptive Programs at Renssalaer,"Library Trends,38 (4): 569-81 (Spring 1990).

Koska, M.T., "Hospital/Physician Fax Networks: Plan Ahead for Success, "Hospitals, 64 (4):75 (February 20, 1990).

Kronick, D.A., "Goodbye to Farewells: Resource Sharing and Cost Sharing,"Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 8 (3): 132-6 (July 1982).

Lynch, C.A., "Linking Library Automation Systems in the Internet: Functional Requirements,Planning, and Policy Issues,"Library Hi Tech Journal, 7 (4): 7-18 (1989).

Lynch, C.A., "The Technologies of Electronic Imaging,"Journal of the American Society forInformation Science, 42 (8): 578-85 (September 1991).

Seloff, G.A., "Automated Access to the NASA-JSC Image Archives,"Library Trends, 38 (4):682-96 (Spring 1990).


19/19

Stone, G. and Sylvain, P., "ArchiVISTA: A New Horizon in Providing Access to VisualRecords of the National Archives of Canada,"Library Trends, 38 (4): 737-50 (Spring 1990).

Walker, F.L. and Thoma, G.R., "Access Techniques for Document Image Databases,"Library Trends, 38 (4): 751-86 (Spring 1990).

Yamamoto, L.G. and Wiebe, R.A., "Improving Medical Communication with Facsimile(Fax) Transmission,"American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7 (2): 203-8 (March 1989).