← Previous Summary
Next Summary →

Summary of Project Team Meeting, July 10, 2012

Maine Shared Collections Strategy Project Team
July 10, 2012
Fogler Library Conference Room
2-3 pm

Attending: Valerie Glenn, Clem Guthro, Barbara McDade, Deb Rollins

1. Project Updates
a. Reclamation – reloading of 001s

Sara provided a written update prior to the meeting. “URSUS reloading is complete; Colby will be completed by the end of July; Bates and Bowdoin have committed to doing this before the end of summer.”  (It was noted that depending on the timing of the data export for collection comparison purposes, Bates and Bowdoin data may not match the OCLC data.)

b. Budget

All partners have been billed for their portion of WCA; all payments have been received.

c. 583 testing

From Sara:

“Monographs:

A 583 note can be added to item records. It will display in local catalogs, but does not obey the webpubdef rules, so the whole field displays. This may be able to be adjusted with javascript. (Need to check with Venice/James about display in MaineCat).

We can batch create LHRs in OCLC by exporting 583s from item records. Requires some slight data manipulation. Sara is confirming with OCLC.

Serials:  583s can be added to checkin records, and can display in the catalog. Export of detailed holdings information (for LHRs in OCLC)  requires a III MARC holdings export table, and for data to be stored in MARC format in serials records.  Both Colby and Ursus have data in MARC format in checkin records.  Only Colby has an export table.  It would be a significant project for Bowdoin and Bates to move to MARC holdings format.”

Valerie showed the group an example from Bowdoin’s test catalog, where a 583 retention note had been inserted into an item record for a title where multiple copies are held. Clem asked if testing had been done to indicate how multiple 583 statements (for retention and condition or completeness) were displayed; Valerie responded that she did not think this had been done, but would send the question to Sara.

d. Collection Analysis

We have received some correspondence from OCLC that indicates that we’ll be receiving a custom report instead of/in addition to having input on the next generation WCA. Due to an early departure from ALA, Valerie did not get a chance to talk to Meghan and Kathryn about the product; she will schedule a talk with them to discuss the product development schedule, the type of access that we may have, and will ask questions about what will happen to the data we are planning to send.

2. Project Timeline/Progress

The timeline that was submitted with the grant application has turned out to be a bit off. As an example, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was one of the final deliverables, scheduled for the final months of the project. We have realized that the document should be drafted and finalized much sooner – and some individual elements need to be discussed before finalization.

Valerie has drafted a list of goals she would like to accomplish prior to September 1st and December 1st.  They are:

Prior to September 1st:

  • have a draft MOU
  • have access to item-level data for all libraries, compared to WorldCat and HathiTrust
  • have a draft workflow for batch-loading of retention decisions for “unique to WorldCat” items
  • make a recommendation to the Directors Council regarding how to handle public domain HathiTrust items
  • make a recommendation regarding the project retention period and withdrawal notification
  • submit a revised budget, with additional documentation for new project staff, to IMLS

Prior to December 1st:

  • have the MOU approved by the Directors Council
  • have implemented a workflow for batch-loading retention decisions
  • have an approved retention policy on the number of copies, as well as print vs. electronic copies

3. Memorandum of Understanding – decisions needed

On June 19th Valerie sent a note to project team and collection management representatives regarding the decisions needed before we finalize an MOU.

One item that must be discussed is the length of the retention period. We have previously determined that 25 years (the standard for many similar projects) is too long. Clem raised the point that we may want to consider different retention periods for different categories (such as HathiTrust public domain materials); the Collection Management Subcommittee will consider this during its meeting on Thursday.

Barbara raised the issue of the Last Copy Center – and what its role will be, in a discussion of the business/financial model for the project. Many similar projects (distributed archiving models) have the participants absorbing the costs. However, if we do establish a last copy center, where libraries can weed based on its holdings, how will that work?

4. Upcoming Events:
a. July 12, 1-3: Collection Management Subcommittee, Colby College
b. August 14, 2-4: Project Team Meeting, Fogler Library Conference Room [Note: this will need to be rescheduled. Valerie will send some alternate dates/times. She will also send prospective times for a MOU drafting session.]