 Good afternoon. I'm Amy Yeager of the Association of Research Libraries, and I'd like to welcome you to this afternoon's webinar, IPED Survey Definition Changes Based on Academic Library Community Employee. There are a few announcements before we begin. All participants have entered the conference in listen-only mode. We invite you to join the conversation by typing questions in the chat box in the lower left corner of your screen. The speakers will answer questions at the end of the presentation. This webinar is being recorded on Tuesday, November 3, 2015. ARL will share the presentation slides and a link to the recording in the next week. Today we will hear from IPED's program staff, as well as members of the Joint ARL-ACRL Task Force on Aligning IPED's Academic Libraries Component Definitions with Established Practices. Our presenters are Mary Jane Petrowski, Associate Director of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Martha Kira Lidu, Senior Director of Statistics and Service Quality Programs at the Association of Research Libraries, and Chair of the NAISO Z39.7 Data Dictionary. Also joining us are Bob Fox, Dean of Libraries at the University of Louisville, and Chair of the ARL Assessment Committee, and Bob Dugan, Dean of Libraries at the University of West Florida, and Co-Chair of the ACRL Academic Library Trans and Statistics Survey Editorial Board. We'll also hear from Christopher Cody, who's Senior Researcher at the American Institutes for Research, and the IPED Survey Director for Academic Libraries and Admissions. And perhaps joining us later for the question and answer session will be Bal Lee, who's Associate Education Research Scientist, National Center for Education Statistics, and the IPED Survey Contact. Welcome to all of you. And now to begin the webinar, I would like to turn the floor over to Mary Jane Petrowski. Mary Jane, please go ahead. Welcome, everybody. I'm so glad you all could join us today. It looks like we have a full house. Here you see the agenda for today's talk. And before we get into the nuts and bolts of all the changes, we're just going to take a quick look. And I'll talk to you, say, just a few words about the ACRL Academic Library Trans and Statistics Survey. I first of all want to thank all the institutions that participated in our 2014 survey. We had a 43 percent participation rate and we are looking to increase that rate this year with your help. We have published our 2014 survey results in ACRL metrics along with our longitudinal data, which includes the NCES Academic Library Survey data going back to 1998. And for the first time last year, we gave respondents the ability to input and download their IPADS responses. And over 200 institutions took advantage of this new feature. The good news is that with our 2015 survey, all respondents and participants can download their IPADS responses and send those to their local key holder or upload them into IPADS directly if you are a key holder. And I want to thank Bob Dugan and his leadership of the ACRL Academic Library Trans and Statistics Editorial Board because the 2015 survey now will also include important benchmarking questions from the former NCES Academic Library Survey as well as a trans questionnaire on collection budgets, institutional repositories, and digital collections. So I hope everyone will participate this year. And if you haven't received an invitation to contribute, please contact our Survey Administrator at Counting Opinions by email or phone as indicated above. And now I'd like to turn the podium over to Martha. Hello. You heard from Mary Jane, you know, both ACRL and ARL have their annual surveys out in the field collecting data. And of course we have an interest in seeing consistent definitions across the board at the national level. And that's why we wanted to see the IPADS definitions align with our established practices. The ARL Statistics is the longest running library data series in higher education, goes beyond any of our lifetimes back to 1908, known as the Gerald Statistics. And currently the 2014-2015 survey is open for our member libraries. The history of the survey of course has influenced the academic library statistics field above and beyond our member libraries. And our established definitions over the years have been incorporated in many other academic surveys, including national surveys. We did transform the definitions in the survey a couple of years ago. This is an evolutionary transformation process that we have to maintain as our libraries are changing our national instruments of capturing the way we describe our libraries need to change. And at the same time the IPADS, as we will hear, was changing and some of the definitions there were not fully aligned with our established practices, therefore the work we are going to be reporting to you today. In addition to managing the ARL Statistics here at the Association of Research Libraries, I also chaired NISO, National Institute for Standards Organization, the standing committee that's responsible for maintaining the standard known as Z39.7. It's a data dictionary where all the definitions from all the national surveys come together and are being compiled. Actually we do have a teleconference next Monday, November 9 at 3 p.m. Eastern time for those of you who want to learn more about the Z39.7 data dictionary. Now the need to align the definitions at the national level was really what drove the key goals for the joint task force. So we wanted IPADS, the Academic Libraries Component Definitions, to incorporate and reflect established practices. And as you will hear, the goal is achieved and I will pass the floor here to Bob Duggan. Thank you. What we ended up doing, ACRL with the Trends and Stats Board was working to track comments that were coming in from the Academic Library community as early as September of 2014 in terms of questions that were coming in concerning the IPADS, the Academic Libraries Component, the AL Components Survey. And we were tracking questions and answers and corresponding to either email or phone calls with Baoli and IPADS to get answers. And then I was able to, through a lib guide, keep up, compile a kind of frequently asked questions aspect of questions and answers related to the AL component. And then in January of 2015, at the ALA midwinter in Chicago, I was able to, I was invited by ARL to attend the ARL Assessment Forum in which Elizabeth Edwards and David Larson from the University of Chicago made a presentation about some of the definitional issues that were coming in the IPADS survey. And at that point, when we looked at that, we said, well, wait a minute, we have the similar, if not identical questions that was aligned from the ACRL Stats Board and from the ARL Assessment Forum and that we should look at pulling this together so that we're asking the questions and not overwhelming IPADS with a bunch of the asking the same question 20 different times. So fortunately, we got together and reformed a task force. And the members of the task force are listed here on the PowerPoint slide. I know that Terry Fishel is on the line or she's attending, Steve Hiller is attending, Court Martha is here, David is also here, Bao is from NCS is here and then Mary Jane. And the other party that was involved with this was the American Library Association Office of Research and Statistics, which of course manages, also works with the public libraries and that. So it helped when we were working with the creation of identifying the issues and then working to get some answers. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Bob Fox for how the task force worked. Our task force was formed in April 2015 and this gave us a very tight time frame to produce a set of recommendations. So we launched right into the planning process very quickly. And starting in April, the task force leadership held three conference calls where we identified known issues with existing IPADS definitions. And a number of these concerns had built up over time as they worked their way up to us through individuals at various ARL and ACE-RL institutions. Beginning in mid-May, we rolled the calls out to the full task force and we had a total of five conference calls between mid-May and June 3. We issued our first draft, or internally at least, on June 15th. It was a working draft. Based on that draft, then a number of us met in Washington, D.C. in person at ARL headquarters to work through and finalize those recommendations in Bowie within CES was at that meeting. With all the feedback we had to that point from the various members, we did issue what was our second draft and we shared it very widely within the academic library community because we wanted to solicit feedback for that. We also took advantage of the ALA annual conference in San Francisco to host some information and feedback sessions. And you see two of them listed here. One was held during the ARL Assessment Forum and then ACE-RL also held an IPEDS update at that time. After ALA, we held two more conference calls, one on July 6th and one on July 7th. And at those calls, we reviewed and discussed the feedback that we had received to that point. And then you see as of July 9th, that was the last day for public comments. So taking all the feedback we had received to the various channels we did produce a final set of recommendations and on July 14th, we sent those to the IPEDS Academic Library Survey Director. And on July 23rd, we were notified that those recommendations had been accepted. So with that, I'm going to turn it over at this point to Chris Cody who is going to discuss the changes to the survey that were actually incorporated. Okay, thank you. Today, based on the recommendations of the joint task works, I'm going to walk us through the changes of the 2015-16 Academic Library Survey that will open for collection on December 9th of this year. I'll begin by going through the changes for section one of the survey. This includes library collections and circulation. This section is to be filled out by every institution that states they have a library expenditure that is greater than zero dollars. So looking at the individual recommendations and how IPEDS updated the survey to reflect the recommendations, the first task for recommendation was based on the issue from that the 2014-15 AL survey component regarding digital and electronic books in which IPEDS definitions of e-books selected versus e-books as being a database did not always align with current practices. The issues that determine what constitutes an e-book based on selection method did not make sense in the context of contemporary collection development practices. Based on the recommendation from the task force, IPEDS in 2015-16 will now ask that you report e-book titles owned or leased by the library if individual titles are cataloged and or searchable through the library catalog or discovery system. Provided on the slide is a link to examples of discovery systems. The second task for recommendation for digital electronic books was based on the issue from the 2014-15 AL survey component in which IPEDS was counting e-books in terms of the number of simultaneous users. The issue here is that it was difficult to provide an accurate collection count based upon simultaneous users. Based on the recommendation from the task force, IPEDS in 2015-16 now will ask that you report e-book titles in aggregated sets in which the library selected the aggregator even if not each individual also here you will count e-book titles as equivalent of one volume regardless of the number of users. You'll also report the number at the ministry level and not duplicate unit count for each branch. And here you will not include titles in demand driven acquisitions or patron driven acquisitions collections unless they have been purchased or leased by the library. The third task for recommendation for digital electronic books was based on the issue from the 2014-15 AL survey component on how IPEDS asked that providers should report open access titles as part of the collections. Based on the recommendation from the task force, IPEDS will now ask that open access titles are included in digital and electronic books if the individual titles are searchable through the library's catalog or discovery system. The fourth task for recommendation for digital electronic books in the AL survey component was that government documents were excluded as e- documents. So based off the task force recommendation, we will now ask in the upcoming survey that you report government e- documents when you count government documents for digital and electronic books. Count government e- documents within the digital electronic book collection if they are cataloged and again searchable through the library catalog or discovery system. And moving on to changes in the survey component for physical books and media, the first task force recommendation for physical books and media was based on the issue from the survey component in 2014-15 in which microfilm forms, maps, and non-print materials are excluded from the account of physical materials and not included anywhere else. So based on the task force recommendation, we now ask that the institutions report microforms and cartographic materials in the physical media account since they are in the library's collection. Here, media materials are reported by title and cartographic materials are defined in the IPEDS glossary when you fill out the survey component. Moving on to digital electronic media changes, the first task force recommendation for digital electronic media is based on the issue from the 2014 survey component in which again maps and non-print materials are neither included nor excluded from the digital electronic accounts. So based off this task force recommendation, IPEDS will now ask in the next survey that institutions report digital cartographic material in the digital electronic media account. Similar to the second recommendation regarding digital electronic books, the task force also asks for digital electronic media that based on the issue from the survey component, IPEDS is counting e-books in terms of the number of simultaneous users for this section as well. Again, the issue here was that it's difficult to prepare an accurate collection account based on simultaneous users. So the new survey coming out this year will now ask that your report titles of e-me materials on release by the library if the individual titles are catalog and or searchable through the library calendar discovery system. Again here you'll report e-media titles in the agri-a sets in which the library selected the agri-a even if not each individual title. You'll report the number at the administrator level, but do not duplicate until account for each, unit account for each branch. And do not count image databases in this category. Count as and do not include titles in DDA or PDA collections until you've been purchased or released by the library. Moving on to changes to databases, the only task force recommendation for databases was based on the issue from the 2014-15 survey in which there was confusion on how to report databases on the survey. The task force wanted clarification on definition and what to count as databases. So based on the recommendation from the task force we asked in an upcoming survey that in regards to databases, institutions report the total number of licensed digital electronic databases in your collection if there's a bibliographic or discovery access to the database level at the database level. Each database should be counted individually even access to several databases as a support through the vendor interface. Do not include discovery systems in the counter databases. Do not include individual releases such as annual updates of content or the migration of the user interface to the next vendor release as separate databases. In terms of circulation, the first task force recommendation was based on an issue from the previous survey component in which the term circulation does not accurately reflect what iPads are seeking to measure. As is used in libraries, the concept of circulation is primarily applied to transactions in which library materials are linked to library users over the circulation desk when the library is physically open. However, much of the use to the library collection is now conducted through digital electronic transactions in which usage is a more accurate term in understanding use of digital electronic resources. Based on this recommendation in 2015-16, the iPads survey form will still have circulation as the label for the metric, but then the restrictions refer to physical in terms of circulation and digital electronic in terms of circulation and usage. Shown on the slide is an example how it will appear in the actual component when you fill out the survey where usage and circulation is labeled and then where just individually circulation is labeled. Again, in terms of circulation, there were two additional recommendations from the task force. The first was in which circulation included the count of non-returnable interlibrary loan items, included reserve collections with general collections, and included renewals. In terms of non-returnable interlibrary loan items, the issue was very few libraries considered them as circulations as these transactions were often counted in interlibrary loans, so they felt a change needed to be made. Also, in terms of circulation, the issue was that including reserve collection and renewals and general collections, there was some variety in local policies for how both renewals and reserves were viewed. So based off this understanding and the recommendation from the task force, iPads now, regarding circulation, ask that you report the total number of times fiscal items are checked out from their general collection, include only initial checkouts, exclude interlibrary loan lending and borrowing, include transactions in media, books in media, and do not include transactions in equipment or computers. However, circulation of electronic reading devices can be included if the device is preloaded with an e-book. Moving on to digital electronic circulation, the first task force recommendation was based on a previous survey's issue that we were not counting transactions of digital electronic databases. Much of the academic library usage is digital electronic and so there felt a need to be included in the circulation count. So based off this recommendation, an upcoming survey asks the institution to report uses of digital electronic titles whether viewed, downloaded, or streamed. This includes uses for e-books and e-medit titles only. The entire title is purchased as part of a database. Do not include the usage of titles in DDA or PDA collections until they have been purchased or leased by the route library. And do not include transaction of VHS, CDs, or DVDs as a transaction in these materials are reported under physical circulation. Again, looking at digital electronic circulation, another recommendation from the task force was based off the issue that the survey component did not identify a method for a library to collect circulation usage of electronic resources. To resolve this issue, iPeds identifies counter and DAL component of the upcoming survey as a source of usage data for e-books and media only. The definition of counter reports for e-books are provided on the slide. Regarding counter, if counter reports are available, iPeds suggest that libraries report counts from BR1 and MR1. If BR1 and MR1 statistics are not available, BR2 and MR2 statistics can be used. However, in cases where vendors do not provide counter reports, libraries may report using other means for monitoring digital electronic circulation uses such as downloaded session reviews, transaction logs, etc. So those were the changes to definitions and instructions for the first section of the AL component. Looking now, we'll be going through the changes for the second section of the survey that includes library extensions and interlibrary services. This section is filled out by institutions at state that have library expenditures greater than $100,000. There's only one task force recommendations for Section 2 based also on the issue of the previous survey component. The issue was in all other expenditures for this section stated if items in this section are not paid from the library budget, they can be easily identified in other parts of the institution's budget, report them here. The task force recommended this should also be reported in salaries and wages. So in the upcoming AL component we now ask the institution to report salary and wages before deductions for all full-time and part-time library staff, including student assistant wage and federal work-states student's wage from the library budget and all other institutional sources that are identifiable. So there were also some overall changes to the AL survey from the 2014-15 to the 2015-16 survey component. Some changes were based on recommendations from the task force others were based on issues or results that the NTS staff noticed from the 2014-15 survey. So we'll go over a few of those changes as well for the upcoming survey. The first overall change deals with the screener questions that determine if the institution fills out the AL component on what parts. In 2014-15 the screener question for institution was based on reporting total library expenditures and the institutional characteristics header survey determined eligibility if the institution filled out the academic library survey. This practice resulted in institutions reporting estimated AL expenditures which sometimes required amendments when the final expenditures were known. In some cases the misreported data in the fall collection from the IC header survey result in the wrong form assigned for the spring reporting for the AL component. So in order to address this issue 2015-16 two screener questions are provided. One in the institutional characteristics header survey to determine the institution's eligibility for AL components. And the second one in the AL component to determine the institutional eligibility for section 2 of the AL component. So first a yes-no question is asked regarding whether library expenditures are greater than zero in the IC header during fall collection. If the answer to this question is yes then based off this the institution will receive the AL component to the survey. And then regarding the screener question in the AL component this question asks if expenditures were greater than 100,000 if the institution asks and answers yes to this then they will receive section 2 of the survey to ask more detailed questions on expenditures for the academic libraries. The next slide here just shows the two screener questions that will be asked in the upcoming survey. The first one is the will be included in the institutional characteristics header survey. As I said regarding if they receive the AL component or not. And then the second will be actually on the AL's academic library survey to determine if they receive section 2 of the survey. Another overall change to the 2015-16 survey. Another overall survey recommendation that came from the task force was guarding the issue from the 2014-15 survey where libraries did not have an applicable choice. This was an issue because not all libraries have responses to questions asked on the survey. So based on the task force recommendations and the limitations of our data collection the 2015-16 survey will not ask the institutions will now ask the institutions to please respond to each item in the survey. If the appropriate answer for an item is zero or none or if material is providing counts are not manageable you will answer the question with zero. However now if the material is not provided or if expenses are not applicable you will leave the item blank. This here will count as a not-askable answer for the survey. So we still not provided with a blank as not-askable. You will now just leave the survey answer blank to define your choice of NA. So those are all the changes for the 2015-16 survey. A few things that we are going to move on to now is talk about possible changes to the 2016 Academic Library Survey. We are currently beginning our process for review on survey changes through the Office of Management and Budget. So we will go over a few of the proposed changes that we are going to be making this year. The first change for the 2016-17 survey that we are discussing are adding an additional screener question to the institutional characteristics of which it asks, does your institution have access to a library collection? So in the upcoming survey we determined eligibility as a pre-lustated for the AL component based off institutions having library expenses greater than zero. This practice has allowed institutions that do not have library experiences but do actually have library collections being eligible to complete the AL component. So what we are proposing asking institutions is an additional screener question that says does your institution have access to a library collection? So if the data providers answer yes to this AL screen question or answers yes to both questions then the institution will be eligible for the AL component. The second possible change for the 2016-17 survey we are considering making is changing the question about academic libraries and the institutional characteristics surveys. From does your institution have its own library or are you financially supporting a shared library with another post-secondary education institution? To which of the following library resources or services does your institution provide to its content? Check all that applies. Physical facilities and organized collection of print materials. Access to digital electronic resources. A staff trained to provide and interpret library materials. Established library hours. Access to library collections are shared with another institution. The changes detailed here allow that providers to report all aspects of an academic library that are accessible to the institution. Also the proposed change aligns the library question and the institutional characteristics survey component to IPEDS definition of an academic library. Based on other discussions with the task force IPEDS is also considering for the 2016-17 survey adding a serials row to the library's collection circulation. Provided on the slide is a definition of what a serial would be regarding the collection for the 2016-17 survey. Also finally based on discussion with the task force IPEDS is considering moving the following from section 2 to section 1 in the 2016-17 survey. We're discussing moving interlibrary services. The questions regarding total interlibrary loans and documents provide to other libraries. And the question regarding total interlibrary loans and documents received. We're planning to move this from section 2 to section 1. Section 2 questions are more aligned with library expenditures. Section 1 questions are more aligned with library collections. We propose moving the questions associated with interlibrary services to section 1 of the survey since they are more related to library collections. This would also allow people that receive AL component not just people who receive the second section of the AL component to fill out this information. Also based off task force recommendations for the 2016-17 survey we're proposing deleting the following question from section 2. Does your library support virtual references services? It's a yes or no question. The joint task force proposal limited this question due to the fact that almost every library now provides some means of virtual references. Deeming the question somewhat outdated. And then finally another area change we're discussing with this task force. We're not planning on implementing this into 2016-17 survey collection but it's something we'll present today and we'll have future discussions about. We're discussing adding a not shared and share column to the digital electronic materials of library collections in section 1 of the AL component. Since digital electronic collections, books, databases, serials, and media are not always accessible within an institution but also across institutions it is important to account for what items are shared and not shared. So adding a shared and not shared column to the digital electronic column of library collections will capture additional information on how institutions are sharing resources. It will also allow staff providers to more accurately report all aspects of their library collections. However this is something we are still discussing with the task force and so there's no plan to currently propose it in the 2016 changes with our OMB package and just something that I want to present today giving an example of on the slide and we'll let you know that we'll be having discussions about this in the future. And I believe that all the changes and possible future changes for the survey component that we're planning to implement for the collection that's coming up in December 2016-17. I think we'll now turn it over to what's next for the task force. Yes. Yes. So as you see here we've still got a little bit more work to do. We are going to pull the academic library community to see if there is additional data that they would like to incorporate into the iPad survey. We're going to review the publish or otherwise made available data from the first academic library component. I'm not sure what the timeline is for that but as soon as that's available we'll be taking a look at that. I do see questions coming in. Val Lee has been responding to a number of them. So please type if you have more questions in the chat box in the lower left corner of the screen. Let's see. We can answer some also by voice. Val, are you on the line? Maybe you are muted maybe. So one of the questions from Stephanie Wittenbach, where are archival materials counted? I don't see them. Anyone on the call wants to take that? Val, are you still online? Dougan, Bob Fox, how would you answer this question? Where are archival materials counted? This is Dougan. I notice that there are a couple questions coming about the ACRL survey and then there's other questions related to the AL component. It depends on the nature of the archival material. Is the archival material from the AL component is archival material in print or is it electronic? If it's in print, it may be underneath the print books. If it's electronic, it would probably be underneath the electronic media. It depends on the format. I'm having trouble looking at that and talking at the same time but it depends on the AL component side. It looks like to me it's good to depend on the format. Same thing kind of goes with the ACRL survey. The definitions are fairly robust there. We don't separate out archival material other than we do have questions about institutional repositories on the ACRL 2015 survey. You may look at it as coming from the IR, the institutional repository, or again it depends upon what is the format or what's the format of the material. She's clarifying, Stephanie. She's asking about manuscript materials, specifically not books. Of course, those are usually boxed as another person indicates and counted in linear feed. Right now we do not have a question about archival materials in linear feed in the iPad survey. We do not have that in the ACRL 2015 survey either. One of the things that we should point out from both the ACRL 2015 survey and the AL component is that neither survey is designed to measure all library activity. However, the ACRL 2015 or as we look at developing the 2016 survey that will be released in 10 months, if this is something that academic librarians think we should capture then we would certainly look at a section or a couple of questions on the ACRL survey that would seek to measure this type of material, the archival material in linear feed or however you think it should be counted. On the ACRL 2015 survey towards the end of the survey document there is a question that asks you do you want or do you recommend or do you suggest any other data elements for inclusion? That is a perfect place to put those kind of questions and the ACRL trends and statistics editorial board will certainly look at that for expansion or inclusion in the next survey for 2016. Right now it's a couple of other people are chatting. They can be counted as titles. We do not have the linear feed but they can be counted as titles as long as they are cataloged or as long as they are discoverable. And of course yes they are a significant component of a library's collection. There has been actually quite a bit of inquiry regarding titles in institutional repositories in our interactions with our constituency, the ACRL libraries and we have been describing the issue in a couple of phone calls we've had with libraries that are asking questions about that. We plan to create a blog entry and initiate a discussion where people can crowdsource their views on how to report them of the titles from the institutional repositories. When they are cataloged in your library catalog of course the solution is obvious but oftentimes there are collections that are not cataloged and they only exist in the institutional repository. We have a few more comments coming. There is Steve Heeler who is actually the US representative to ISO, the International Standards Organization, points out that ISO is currently working on a standard for archive statistics. Let's see what else do we have here? Pamela Price is asking under what category heading will library data appear in the final report? Will it be in services or will it move to another category? I'm trying to get a handle on what categories library data might move to. That's a question for now and Chris Cody. If I'm understanding the question correctly in our data center it will be under its own academic libraries category. It will be separate from all the other categories that you can actually drop down and go into the data center and pull the data for academic libraries and for institutions directly by just looking at the academic library section. The press release we had had a link to the iPad surveys and the academic library survey and it's on its own. Also there was a previous question about when the iPad data for the 2014-15 survey will be coming out. We're expecting that out to come out in early to late November so it should be out soon. Great. Thank you. Ashley Muffin is asking a question. Have there been any discussions of breaking more formal library instruction from presentations to groups? I'm going to add to this because I have received inquiries about research consultations and whether we want to track research consultations in a separate category. Can we stop it from any people on the call? This is Doug and we do have a different definition in the ACRL 2015 survey related to consultations in terms of reference transactions and the second part is the breakdown or further breakdown to presentations to groups and taking on instruction. This is the second time that I've heard this that this request has been made and anytime I hear things the second time it really moves up quickly onto the agenda. So I think that that's something that we'll take a look at for the 2016 survey. Again I encourage you as Terry Fishel has responded on the chat on the ACRL 2015 survey number 80. If you want to include that as a comment back to us we will be looking at everything that comes back to that. I think that's a good idea. As we do these surveys the ACRL survey and the iPad survey you can see that we're evolving in terms of trying to capture best practices and capture those type of data elements that are important to academic libraries. So please use that box line number 80 in order to let us know other data elements you would like us to consider. There are a couple of other questions because we skipped a few that were asked earlier. The Kathleen Bell a little data collected for the last survey be made publicly available. Okay yes you did answer that Chris. And then Cardin Locker is saying it's unclear to me is Lee's to the same thing as subscription. This is Dugan from the ACRL perspective. Yes Lee's is the same as subscribe. And Sandy Rosada is asking we do not track serial circulation will not applicable be an option when that is added. That is something we're still working on with our MD submission. I'm assuming as an out that it will be the option to leave it blank. So which would be a not applicable. During Q&A Constance Malpatis is asking during the Q&A could iPad staff address the deletion section to question regarding owned slash shared academic library how will outsourced slash shared library infrastructure be tracked. This is likely to be an important arrangement especially for two year and some smaller four year institutions going forward. This is the new concept that iPad is thinking for adding in 2016-17 the concepts of shared. Something is completely outsourced. How would, how could iPad handle that? We will still be tracking that. If something is completely outsourced there will be guessing the way they're saying that there will be a parent-child relationship set up in the iPad system. And so that's how we will identify that. And then the parent will report the data for the child institution or child library instance. And then the ratios will define how much of that is allocated to the child academic library compared to the parent academic library. But that's how they're discussing it all versus shared. We'll still capture that in the parent-child relationships. And it will be a shared collection, correct? Yes. Thank you. Am I forgetting anything? Anybody else tracking that? There is one question at the end, whether IRL will ever ask iPad to include a question on libraries digitized collections. I think the challenge is they are defining what's a digitized collection. Anybody would like to take a stab at it? This is Dugan. I think the task force should take a stab at it. Okay, continuing on the track of the outsourced library services, Constance Malpas has a follow-up question, but what if the provider is not an academic library? For example, a public library providing services to an academic institution. Regarding that question, there will be an open comment period for those questions. We'll be going through our AMB submission package. We'll inform the task force when that comment period opens for that question and all the other question changes for 2016-17. And so it's this type of feedback that we'll be considering and possibly, as of now, it's just a suggestion that we change that. But based off this example, it might be something we consider also leaving it. So that would be something I'll bring back to our NTS team and discuss a little further regarding public libraries providing services to an academic institution in terms of sharing and keeping that question in. Also, I think Melissa had a question, why will blank equal NA instead of having a third option to type NA? That actually has to deal with our internal data center and how we upload and migrate data over and how the functionality is for us to move that data over if we need to have blank equal NA instead of having that third option. I think we may be exhausting the question to the chat box. That's wonderful. I think it's worth repeating again the fact what you just mentioned, Chris, that the new items that we'll go for AMB approval for the 2016-17 survey will be available for commentating. Can you give us a brief description of how that process will move forward? The process, but how I think I'll disseminate it through all the associations and then you can let your constituents know and what it will be, you'll be able to, anyone, public person will be able to go on. It's a public website. And as comments are on concerns or issues or suggestions, and then we will comment back and then depending on the comments we usually could influence how those changes are submitted and continued for the 2016-17 survey. But with this one issue it raised, I'll probably go ahead and bring it back to NCS staff now and discuss it a little bit further. Wonderful. So for the institutions filling out the iPads that's opening up in December 9th, I'd like to remind everyone that we have on our website and you'll have it on your survey as you fill out the Help Desk. So any additional questions that come up regarding any survey component or item, you can call our Help Desk or contact them and usually they have expanded information on how to fill out a survey and if not then it gets risen to NCS staff. Also all our information is online that you can contact us directly if needed. I would like to thank you Cody and Bao Lee and Bob Dugan and Bob Fox and Mary Jane Petrovsky and Amy Yeager. And we are receiving thanks from our participants in the chat box too. Thank you everybody for attending this Webcast. It will be available on the ARL YouTube channel next week. Goodbye.