Maine Shared Collections Strategy Advisory Board/Project Team Meeting
May 21, 2012
Bumps Room, Memorial Union (University of Maine)
11-12:30

Attending: Valerie Glenn, Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Bob Kieft, Constance Malpas, Barbara McDade, Lizanne Payne, Deb Rollins

Valerie updated the group on the progress over the past year, noting that not all of the promised deliverables had been completed, and explained why.

Constance asked for clarification of the mention of “retention-related metadata” in the project update document. Valerie explained that the group would be reviewing the recently-released final report of the OCLC print archives disclosure pilot, which recommends the use of a 583 retention statement in a local holdings record, and attempt to apply that to our local records. This led to a detailed discussion of how to document retention decisions for monographs (the pilot project focused on journal holdings), as well as a discussion of the limitation of our existing systems. (Currently it is not possible to attach a local holdings record to a monograph record in III).

James explained how MaineCat is populated/updated. There is a “record of record” – contributed by the first library to catalog a particular title. The MaineCat record is updated if/when the original library updates the record, but if another library were to update their bibliographic record (with a 583 retention note, for example), that would not necessarily overlay the MaineCat record and thus would not display publicly. The algorithm for determining the master bib record is complex and takes into account a number of factors, not all of which can be manipulated consistently
for our purposes.

The group spent some time brainstorming how to ensure that a retention note would display publicly in MaineCat. Suggestions included:

• Modify the call number in some way (example, insert/append text such as “mscs” or “retained”
• Create a new location (ie, Maine shared Orono stacks); it was pointed out that this could cause serious confusion on the part of users trying to find the physical location
• Modify the display of MaineCat to add a retention category that would pull from the 583 field (similar to the inclusion of the “electronic link” that pulls from the 856)

Questions:

• How can any of these be batched, to reduce work on the technical services end? Can the 583 note be auto-populated?
• How does the system map OCLC holding symbol in/to the item record?

We need to identify some items and begin developing/testing procedures. We need to review the recommended standards for recording retention decisions, and determine how they might be implemented, including how much detail we will want to include (discussion primarily focused on condition note – how can we determine different levels of preservation?)

It was noted that two other groups are having/beginning to have these same discussions, and that it would be helpful to reach out to them and have a broader conversation to develop a standard vocabulary, for example.  It was suggested that the three parties get together for a meeting to discuss this, but it was unclear as to what the purpose of the meeting would be.  We may be able to bring folks together for a conversation at the ALA Annual Conference next month.

It was noted that it would be useful to test the recently released recommended standards, then determine whether or not further development of standards for monographs are needed.

Clem raised a concern regarding the need to create a separate holdings symbol for retained items, stating cost as one concern. Constance indicated that there are also resource sharing implications; the costs associated with new symbols are more due to batch loading services and the new workflows involved, rather than the cost of the symbol.

Other issues:
Multiple copies in one institution – how will we indicate which copy is being retained/preserved?