Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team Meeting
March 20, 2012
Fogler Library Conference Room
9-11 am

Attending: Valerie Glenn, Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade, Deb Rollins

1. Grant Activity Update
   1. Reclamation
      Sara sent a written update:
      “All URSUS libraries involved in the reclamation process have finished processing with OCLC.  There remains some cleanup with individual schools, e.g. unresolved records that didn’t match in OCLC, records with no 001s, records with two 001s, etc.  The next step will be loading the approximately 170,000 (about 8%) records with updated OCLC numbers. I’m currently discussing this process with Venice and Sharon.  More on this below.Bates and Colby have finished processing, with only cleanup remaining.   Bowdoin should be finished this week. The next WCA scan will not start until the 26th, so they should make it in time.

      There was one rather disturbing incident with OCLC that has slowed Bowdoin down.  Karl discovered in reviewing the changed OCLC number reports that records were not matching correctly.  Records which had valid OCLC numbers in the 001 were not matching up with their respective records in OCLC, and sometimes were being matched on records of lesser quality than those of the matching 001.  In discussions with OCLC he was told the following :”… we had some system problems at the time some of your files went thru matching.  If you recall the one file that had 30K plus unresolved, and then we re-ran it and most matched.  Systems were overloaded, and searches were not making it to the database.  I can only guess that the record in questions didn’t match on OCLC number because of that system problem, then matched on the LCCN. ”

      This is alarming as it took Karl investigating and asking to find this out. OCLC has quickly re-run the Bowdoin files. I’ve asked for details of when this problem may have been occurring, and if it could have possibly affected the URSUS records.  I have not heard back.  Since the files that show bib number and matched OCLC number do not contain which school the record came from, I have not distributed that report.  I had faith that OCLC was doing the matching correctly.   I’m now going to see if I can piece together matching schools for the 170,000 changed bibs and send those out in case anyone wants to spot check them before we reload URSUS.

      The CBB schools are still discussing whether to reload the changed 001 records.”

      In the discussion that followed, there was a question regarding why the reloading of records is under discussion; the project team agreed that this should be done, in preparation for post-analysis activities such as recording retention decisions.

      James mentioned that with the reclamation winding down, we need to decide what else we want Sara to work on. It was suggested that we ask her to investigate LHRs and other methods for documenting retention decisions in local systems. One component of this would be exploring how this could be easily exported and uploaded to OCLC. (Would the decision statement be included in a 9xx field of the bib record? Included in an item record?); it was suggested that she work with a sub-group of the technical services committee, perhaps Sharon F. from UMO and Karl from Bowdoin; Lizanne and Constance from the Advisory Board would be good resource people.

   2. Collection analysis
      Valerie indicated that, because the WCA monograph data isn’t completely accurate, she’s beginning to look at serials that are shared by the group, including how to compile holdings data. She also indicated that this is more than just journals – includes almanacs, directories, etc. How can these be chunked into categories that can then be sent to the Collection Reps for verification?  Should we look at large sets that are available digitally? Chunk into categories like journals, magazines, reference works, etc.?The discussion turned to the role of the Last Copy Center. A service model, financial model, workflow all need to be established. Questions raised included: how can the LCC holdings be incorporated into MaineCat, allowing users to directly request items instead of going through ILL? Could smaller libraries take money from their serials/reference budget to support the housing of collections in the LCC? Who owns the collections housed there?
2. Development ProposalThe group reviewed the list of desired requirements for analysis that was developed last fall when comparing WCA subscription capabilities. Some corrections were made, and additional requirements were added. Valerie will send the revised document to Kathryn and ask a) if the WCA-future answers were still accurate, and b) if there were planned developments not on this list.  Once we have those answers, we’ll consolidate our request into more of a narrative document and send.
3. Berkeley Orphan Works SymposiumShould we send a representative to this symposium in April? All agreed that the orphan works issue is something of importance to the grant. Valerie and Clem will decide soon whether or not either of them can go.
4. Upcoming events:
   1. April 10, 9-11: Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library Conference Room
   2. April 18, 10-12: Collection Management Reps, Colby College, Miller Library Conference Room
5. Other:
   1. The Advisory Board’s MLA session is scheduled for 9:30 on the 21st.
   2. The Bumps Room in the Memorial Union has been reserved from 8-5 on the 21st; the Advisory Board meetings with the Project Team and Collection Representatives will be held there. It was suggested that the University Club be reserved for lunch (Advisory Board + Directors Council).