Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
May 15, 2012
Fogler Library Conference Room
9-11
Attending: Valerie Glenn, Clem Guthro, James Jackson Sanborn, Barbara McDade (via phone), Deb Rollins
1. Project Updates
a. Reclamation – reloading of 001’s
Venice will be reloading 42,081 records with updated 001’s into URSUS this afternoon. MEML and RARE records are being excluded at this time in order for the URSUS catalogers to review during their meeting on June 1.
The CBB cataloging group will be discussing when/how this should be done during their meeting on May 16.
It was noted that we’d been asked why this was necessary to do now, given the WCA’s inability to accept circulation data for groups. Valerie has communicated (and will follow-up) that we are beginning to look at unique items (for which we need accurate 001’s); Clem and James noted that this is important to ensure that records in MaineCat aren’t duplicated.
b. Collection Analysis
During last week’s meeting of the collection management subcommittee, it was decided that we needed to refine the criteria we were using to conduct a “test” analysis. Valerie is crafting the criteria; we are searching for items with “biology” call numbers (roughly QH and 57x) published prior to 1996; it was decided that we do not need to limit by the item record creation date; if it is determined that a substantial number of pre-96 items were added to collections after a certain date (say 2000) we will then review.
We will limit the search by material type, in order to eliminate serials from the results. Valerie has sent a query to Sharon at Bates regarding the best way to limit a search by call number for the CBB schools.
The WCA data has been refreshed with the March snapshot data, giving us a more accurate picture of the group’s holdings following the reclamation. The current number of records included (4,570,107) is 749,206 more than the number following the December snapshot (pre-reclamation). Most libraries’ total number of holdings went up, with the exceptions being the State Library and USM-Lewiston/Auburn.
Valerie has been in contact with Meghan at OCLC re: our proposal. We need to determine what kind of reports we want (ie, how to fit our data into their existing reports) and send. Valerie will talk to James and Venice about how this might be accomplished.
Clem noted that we need to check with OCLC to see how we will need to send our data – in terms of file size/number of files. This will determine whether or not we need to contact III re: an export table. Valerie will contact Meghan and report back.
c. Budget
We are still under-spending in most budget categories; Valerie asked the group how she should proceed in documenting the partner match (re: time spent on grant projects by people who weren’t initially written into the grant). James suggested using a modified version of the UMaine certification of effort form. Valerie will talk to Susan about the form, etc.
d. Recording of retention decisions
Report from Sara:
The OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Pilot Final Report makes recommendations for using the 583 field. The report is available at:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iM86_QRG0vBXqlRwezIA2pOANJdIqmlAnSS_t31WgNU
In III, you can add 583 fields to both checkins and item records. I’ve tried this out in both URSUS and BOWD catalogs.
To get the data out of III in marc 21 format for holdings data, you need to purchase an export table from III. Karl estimates this to be between $3000-$5000, based on what they paid for an export table for resource records. An alternative to this is you can export these fields in create lists, and massage the data into a text format that OCLC can ingest.
OCLC does allow for batch loading of holdings, so data could be entered in III, exported using a custom table from III or create lists, and sent in batch to OCLC.
I talked with the folks at UC San Diego, and while they are doing this, currently for journals only, their process is quite involved – mostly because of the complexity of identifying which records to export with each update.
Also, the OCLC report recommends acquiring a new OCLC symbol (cost?) for the shared print items, and moving holdings from the old symbol to the shared symbol. This could be done in batch also, but is not trivial, and has workflow implications for ILL and potential costs for ILLIAD users if they need to accommodate another OCLC symbol (OCLC report says $1200/yr, though they waived that for pilot project participants.)
We will be discussing this issue with the Advisory Board on Monday. There is a question of how this would work for monographs – particularly the OCLC recommendation that a separate holding symbol be created for print archive retention locations. (This could make sense to create a separate symbol for the Last Copy Center, but maybe not for some of the other libraries).
Valerie will re-send the links to the public views of the pilot project examples. Project team members should review these prior to Monday’s meeting.
We will also need to consider resource sharing implications – particularly if we are recommending that only one copy of an item be retained.
2. Advisory Board visit
The Advisory Board will be visiting on Monday; Valerie provided some draft agendas for their meetings with the project team and the collection management subcommittee. The agendas were finalized and will be sent with supporting documents later this week.
Depending on when the Advisory Board members are scheduled to arrive, dinner with the project team on Sunday evening may be a good idea. Valerie will contact them for travel schedules, ask if they need anything special for their presentations, etc.
There is no agenda for the lunch with the Directors Council; Valerie will provide a project update prior to the meeting – after around 45 minutes we will begin an informal question and answer session where the directors can ask questions of the advisory board and the project team.
3. Report from the Berkeley Orphan Works and Mass Digitization symposium
Clem gave the group an overview of the workshop; he will send a written summary at a later date. His takeaway was that there are varying approaches to tackling the orphan works issue – some more radical than others. All of us need to become more educated on copyright and licensing issues; at some point we may want to invite someone to Maine to present at a continuing education event.
Presentations from the workshop are available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/11731.htm
4. Future meetings
Valerie confirmed that the first Tuesday of the month at 2pm is generally a good meeting time. She will send a list of dates to the group and ask for those dates where a conflict exists.