Recording Monographic Retention Decisions – Meeting Notes – August 28, 2012
Attending: Sarah Campbell, Karl Fattig, Sharon Fitzgerald, Venice Bayrd, Sara Amato
The main focus of this meeting was the use of 583 statements in item records to record retention decisions.
Outcomes Overview:
Agreed on the standard language for 583 ‘committed to retain’ and ‘condition reviewed’ statements. There was some discussion as to whether these statements could be combined. Sara A. will talk to OCLC about this. Also noted that 583s should be in each item record of multi volume sets. Agreed that we will try 5 sample records and add ‘committed to retain’ and ‘condition reviewed’ in local catalogs and look at how data flows to MaineCat.
Discussed need for a Shared Print OCLC symbol. Since it was Sara’s understanding that these items would not have separate lending rules, it was felt that an additional symbol was not needed. Again Sara will discuss this with OCLC to see if they have any other reasons for recommending a separate symbol.
Question for Project and Collections Teams:
Display – How important is public display, as opposed to staff access to the information? In general we thought that it was important as a showcase of the project, but there are display issues with III, which would require using external javascript to fix. Alternatively we could have 856 link somewhere. Is there a public service group to discuss this? Sara A. can show some examples, e.g.
Mudlumps: http://phebe.bowdoin.edu:2082/search/X?mudlumps&searchscope=1&SORT=D
Circulation of items – is it correct that these items will not circulate differently than other items?
8/30/2012 – Answer from Deborah Rollins email:
This is correct. Retention statements will be added to items whose status will usually remain the same (often that status will be circulating). I expect that when we look at entirely unique to OCLC items and add retention statements, we might change the status of some to non-circulating if we find them in the stacks, though.
If material held by more than one institution, will other institutions withdraw their copies? If other copies are not withdrawn, should ‘condition reviewed’ statements be added to those items (with no committed to retain statement.)
8/30/2012 – Answer from Deborah Rollins email:
Other institutions may withdraw their copies, or not, as they choose. I expect that “condition reviewed” statements will NOT be added to the items that are not agreed to be the retained copies of record. However, there is nothing to prevent an institution from adding this data on their own if they wish to.
If an institution decides to keep an item out of the scope of this project, are there any issues with them adding ‘committed to retain’ statements to their records? (We think not but wanted to ask.)
8/30/2012 – Answer from Deborah Rollins email:
No, they could add retention statements to items outside the scope of our project (after all, it’s just a MARC record field). BUT, I would hope we’d agree to complete all MSCS project retention statements and run related reports, gather stats, finalize agreed-upon protocols for the statements, etc., before any institution adds a bunch of other non-project-related retention statements, which could muddy the waters of what we’re doing for the grant.
Action Items:
Sara A. :
-Continue exploring 583 display issues, send Karl the III open call #, contact Bob Duncan
-Add 856 to item in Bowdoin catalog, send to Venice for inspection on MaineCat side.
-Contact Contance Malpas (OCLC) and Lizanne Payne (WEST)to discuss potential to
combine 583 statements and review decisions not to use shared print OCLC
symbol.
Venice:
-Look at how 583s and 856s in the item transfer to MaineCat and explore display options.
Karl, Sharan, Sarah:
-Add 583 statements to 5 sample records. Let Venice know which records. Continue to
think about ideal display.
Next meeting tentatively to be held Sept 6th, 2012, 9 a.m., pending outcome of questions and progress.
Next Steps
– display issues
– local and union catalogs
– OCLC LHRs