SPEC Kit 313: E-book Collections · 37
We have preference for both. We wanted to own the UH Press e-books, but we only wanted to license the Safari
computer books so we could swap as new titles came out. There are titles we want to own but there are those we
just want to use for a while.
We prefer permanent ownership and title-by-title selection. In comparing our title-by-title selections with pre-
packaged collections, the title-by-title selections receive much higher usage.
We prefer to purchase content whenever we can afford it.
We try to purchase archival rights in perpetuity for individual titles.
We want perpetual access however we can get it.
We will lease/subscribe depending on content.
We, like others, are still in an exploratory stage. We have purchased many e-books but do subscribe to other
collections. Ownership vs access is still an ongoing debate.
12. If there is a choice, does the library have a preference for the location of the e-book content?
Check all that apply. N=70
N Individual Titles
N=68
Collections
N=67
Prefer to mount content on local site (library or consortium) 14 11 11
Prefer to link to content on publisher’s/aggregator’s site 51 49 47
No preference 12 11 11
Please enter any comments about the preferred location of e-books for your library. N=23
Again, the preference depends upon the specific situation.
At present publisher provided titles have been hosted by the publishers. For works we are digitizing ourselves or with
partners, we are moving toward hosting on a consortium shared digital repository.
Consortium is planning an e-book solution which will mount member libraries’ e-book content in a single e-book
platform. Currently, most of our e-book content is hosted on the publisher/aggregator’s site.
Essentially all of our e-book content is linked to, rather than hosted.
Future shared digital collections through shared digital repository Hathi Trust.
I don’t know. I would have to say that it depends.
If locally mounted, rights to migrate and reformat as necessary to preserve content need to be defined.
Mounting materials locally is a drain on systems resources. We prefer to outsource that work.
No infrastructure to mount locally. To address security, it might be preferable to mount locally. The issue is
We have preference for both. We wanted to own the UH Press e-books, but we only wanted to license the Safari
computer books so we could swap as new titles came out. There are titles we want to own but there are those we
just want to use for a while.
We prefer permanent ownership and title-by-title selection. In comparing our title-by-title selections with pre-
packaged collections, the title-by-title selections receive much higher usage.
We prefer to purchase content whenever we can afford it.
We try to purchase archival rights in perpetuity for individual titles.
We want perpetual access however we can get it.
We will lease/subscribe depending on content.
We, like others, are still in an exploratory stage. We have purchased many e-books but do subscribe to other
collections. Ownership vs access is still an ongoing debate.
12. If there is a choice, does the library have a preference for the location of the e-book content?
Check all that apply. N=70
N Individual Titles
N=68
Collections
N=67
Prefer to mount content on local site (library or consortium) 14 11 11
Prefer to link to content on publisher’s/aggregator’s site 51 49 47
No preference 12 11 11
Please enter any comments about the preferred location of e-books for your library. N=23
Again, the preference depends upon the specific situation.
At present publisher provided titles have been hosted by the publishers. For works we are digitizing ourselves or with
partners, we are moving toward hosting on a consortium shared digital repository.
Consortium is planning an e-book solution which will mount member libraries’ e-book content in a single e-book
platform. Currently, most of our e-book content is hosted on the publisher/aggregator’s site.
Essentially all of our e-book content is linked to, rather than hosted.
Future shared digital collections through shared digital repository Hathi Trust.
I don’t know. I would have to say that it depends.
If locally mounted, rights to migrate and reformat as necessary to preserve content need to be defined.
Mounting materials locally is a drain on systems resources. We prefer to outsource that work.
No infrastructure to mount locally. To address security, it might be preferable to mount locally. The issue is
