Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
June 5, 2012
Fogler Library Conference Room
2:10-3:40
Re-loading of 001s:
James provided some background for the group: when Venice began to re-load the 001s for changed records in URSUS, she noticed that the leader was being updated as well. She contacted III about this (and notified the CBB schools so that they would not use the same load profile). Upon investigation, III determined that the load profile worked correctly on their test system, but is still not working “correctly” in URSUS. The URSUS cataloging group met on Friday and they agreed that it was fine to continue loading the records and updating the leader; Venice will resume re-loading the records this evening.
There is a new load profile for the CBB schools to use; however, records will need to be tested prior to batch re-loading because those institutions rely on the leader more heavily than do the URSUS libraries.
Budget:
A new partner match has been determined, based on updated salary data. It was determined that the cost of a WCA subscription, as well as HathiTrust member fees for (at minimum) two partners for two years would be sufficient to replace the cost of the Espresso Machine. Due to several personnel changes, Valerie will need to submit additional resumes to IMLS; she will contact the individuals (and their Dean/Director) about this.
Follow-up from Advisory Board visit:
Overall the group felt that the visit went very well. Clem mentioned that there are several areas that the Advisory Board members could help with, especially the implementation of the 583 retention note and the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
583 retention note:
Clem suggested that a task force be set up to figure out how to implement the 583. Sara has been trying some different approaches uses Bowdoin’s testing catalog space – an example was shown where multiple copies of one title were owned, and a retention note had been placed in the item record. MaineCat is still the area that needs to be explored – particularly, how libraries can automatically populate MaineCat with retention decisions once they’ve already populated their local systems.
A summary of the work to-date that’s been done on the 583 note will be sent to the project team, along with a list of questions that will need to be explored. Then we can determine who is best suited for a task force, and formulate a charge with deadlines.
Development of a MOU/determination of a retention period:
It was mentioned that the development of a MOU should be undertaken sooner rather than later; by reviewing other MOUs we will determine what questions need to be answered. One such question is the length of retention period. Everyone expressed the opinion that 25 years (common in journal retention agreements) is too long. The Collection Management Subcommittee will be asked to make a recommendation regarding the retention commitment; this will need to be approved by the Directors Council. The MOU itself should be signed by someone with higher standing than the library director, such as a provost.
Note: the project team has decided that retained copies will be accessible in the same way that they currently are. (ie, if an item is currently in a special collection, and/or non-circulating, it will remain that way; items will be subject to the loan period of the holding library).
Collection Analysis – next steps:
Several approaches to the collection analysis were discussed. First, we would like to review the list of public domain HathiTrust titles for the group (142,282) compared to circulation data. The group also agreed that unique to WorldCat items (58,561 overall; 46,648 books) were good candidates for testing the 583 implementation.
Another approach, mentioned during the Advisory Board meeting with the Collection Management Subcommittee, was to review the items already in a storage facility (unknown number at this time) and compare them to items in the stacks. The project team indicated that this would not be easily done at this time, but may be pursued once all of the group’s data is in one system instead of four.
Once the HathiTrust and unique titles are resolved, the next approach could be reviewing all of those titles owned by three or more partners, along with usage data.
Clem mentioned that he would like to have the collection management subcommittee discuss the role that geography may/may not play in making retention decisions.
Future meetings:
Due to other conflicts, we need to reschedule our meetings for the next six months. Pending verification, it was decided that we would meet on the second Tuesday of each month, from 2-4. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 10th at 2 pm. Once this is confirmed, Valerie will send a note to the group and change the project’s public calendar.