Maine Shared Collections Cooperative Collections and Operations Committee

July 7, 2015

Colby College, Miller Library, Conference Room

9:00 am – 11:00 am

Attendees: Deb Rollins, Matthew Revitt, Joan Campbell, Becky Albitz, Peggy O’Kane, Brian Damien, Patrick Layne, Ana Noriega

Absentees: Cynthia Young

1.    Retention commitment removal and transfer policy & procedures

a.    Removal updates

Some of the founding Maine Shared Collections Cooperative (MSCC) members have weeded titles that have a retention commitment. Matthew commented that in an ideal world any titles with a commitment will be retained in accordance with the MSCC MOU which was signed by the member institutions. However, in the real world there are going to be occasions when an item is lost or damaged and it’s not feasible to replace it which means that a retention commitment will be removed. The criteria for making changes to retention commitment is outlined in the MSCC Policy on Retention Commitment Changes. If a MSCC library can’t replace the commitment locally they should seek to transfer the commitment to another MSCC library following the MSCC Procedure for the External Transfer of Retention Commitments.

Matthew presented examples of titles that Bangor Public Library and the University of Maine have committed which fall into different categories of transfer candidates. Matthew asked the Committee to decide what actions should be taken for each example and whether, in light of these actions, the MSCC Policy on Retention Commitment Changes or MSCC Procedures for the External Transfer of Retention Commitments needed revising.

●    “The Ugly Duckling”. There were no other MSCC commitments and no other MSCC libraries owned this particular edition of the title. Peggy felt that the decision whether to seek a replacement commitment would depend on which edition of the title it is, because there are numerous editions of the “The Ugly Duckling”. So does this particular edition have anything special about it (e.g. illustrations)? Deb and Becky commented that the decision had been made during the grant collection analysis not to take into account edition which means that multiple editions of the same title were committed to retain.

The Committee agreed that MSCC library representatives should research edition variations and make a judgement call as to whether to seek a replacement commitment.

●    “Theodore’s Rival” which the University of Maine owns, but the title doesn’t have an existing retention commitment at another MSCC library other than Bangor Public Library.

The Committee agreed that in such cases Bangor Public Library would be expected to contact the University of Maine to check if they were willing to have the commitment transferred to them. With the caveats that this kind of request should be on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches, and that the University of Maine is free to choose whether to have the commitment transferred to them.

●    “Happy Birthday Lulu” which Edythe L. Dyer Community Library owns. Matthew reminded the Committee that new libraries are joining MSCC, so they should check transfer opportunities at these libraries also (see partners for most for the current list of members). Currently new commitments from non-OCLC members aren’t visible in MaineCat, but they will be soon (see below). Matthew also reminded the Committee that one of the major selling points of the MSCC collection analysis process is that libraries can use the data MSCC provides to weed titles safe in the knowledge that they are being retained by a MSCC library. However, if titles are actually being weeded it could undermine the process.

●    “Teach Me Spanish” is a cassette which is out of scope for MSCC, so doesn’t require a commitment. This would be the case with any other titles that were out of scope for the MSCC analysis, but because of anomalies with the data were mistakenly included.

●    “Rotten Island” which Bangor Public has an updated versions for. Peggy commented that MSCC should consider producing a list of children’s publishers which MSCC wouldn’t make commitment for. There could be for example particular illustrations which makes a specific edition retention worthy. Ana commented that a children’s librarian representative should be consulted on this publisher issue (which Bangor Public has).

The Committee agreed that MSCC library representatives should research issues of edition variations and make a judgement call as to whether to seek a replacement commitment.

●    “Henry and Mudge in the Green Time”. There were no MSCC commitments at another library and no other MSCC libraries own this particular edition of the title, but the titles widely available in MaineCat.

Becky commented that this kind of work will require MSCC library representatives to review the lists title-by-title.

The Committee agreed that for examples such as “Henry and Mudge in the Green Time” MSCC library representatives will decide on a case-by-case basis whether the title should be replaced.

●    “Album of Whales”. There are no MSCC commitments at another library, no other MSCC libraries own this particular edition of the title, and there is an edition with a more recent publication date. Peggy commented that there are a wide range of books on whales available.

The Committee agreed that MSCC library representatives should research issues of edition variations and make a judgement call as to whether to seek a replacement commitment.

●    “A Lantern in Her Hand LARGE PRINT” which the University of Maine has also committed to retain a regular edition of.

The Committee agreed that when it comes to questions of format the MSCC library representatives should make a judgement call as to whether to seek a replacement commitment.

●    “Immortality and Our Employments Hereafter”. There are no MSCC commitments at another library, no other MSCC libraries own this particular edition of the title, but there is a digital copy available from the HathiTrust.

The Committee agreed with Deb that although MSCC had not relied on digital surrogates from the HathiTrust during the grant analysis, for individual examples a HathiTrust copy will suffice as a replacement for a damaged physical copy.

●    “Dancing at the harvest moon: a novel” which the University of Maine has made a commitment to, there is a retention commitment also at Bangor Public, and the Maine State Library owns a copy.

Matthew presented the grant retention criteria for how many title holdings the group were expected to retain.

The Committee agreed that in situations when a title already has an existing retention commitment at another library the MSCC library should still seek to transfer a commitment. Transfers should only be on a limited title-by-title basis, not in large batches, and that MSCC libraries are free to choose not to have the commitment transferred to them. Trust is needed to rely on the professional judgement of fellow MSCC representatives. A permanent MaineCat link should be included in the transfer candidates spreadsheet that are added to the “MSCC” Google folder.

Matthew reminded the Committee that if commitments are removed or transferred the libraries need to remove commitments from local catalogs and OCLC, so they aren’t included in the MSCC collection analysis data. Guidance for removals can be found on the MSCC website.

b.    Review procedures

See above.

c.    Large reference sets

At the Committee’s previous meeting, they had discussed the retention of large reference sets, many of which hadn’t received retention commitments because they were in the list of publishers whose work MSCS agreed not to retain. During the grant period, Barbara McDade, Director Bangor Public Library had wanted to explore whether reference sets should be retained and stored in one place in the state.

Peggy reported that they had discussed the issue of retaining a Maine collection of reference sets at the last URSUS reference meeting and that there was no interest in making commitments to physical copies when there is access to electronic versions. There are individual libraries that will continue to keep hold of certain sets (e.g. the Maine State Library will continue to retain “Who’s Who”). Brian reported that Portland Public Library had moved a number of their reference sets to offsite storage and since then they had only received 1-2 requests for volumes. Joan had discussed the retention of reference sets with Bowdoin reference staff and they felt Colby, Bates and Bowdoin (CBB) should retain the physical copies as they are hard to replace and there is not always an electronic version. However any retention agreements would be between CBB and not part of a state agreement.

The Committee discussed that it wouldn’t make fiscal sense to build and maintain a storage facility for low-demand reference sets.

The Committee agreed that the retention of large reference sets should be closed as an agenda item.

2.    Future analysis & review of commitments

Matthew reported that a common question he’s asked by libraries in the MSCC collection analysis process is what happens at the end of the 15-year retention period and while that is still a ways off Matthew felt the Committee should start considering the next round of collection analysis. Matthew felt for the next round of analysis MSCC might need to approach things differently and decide first what the group doesn’t want to retain, which could involve developing another list of publishers whose titles won’t be committed to retain. For example, Linda Oliver (Bangor Public Library) asked the Committee to consider not retaining consumer health, college guides and directories, guides, publishers children’s books, and some of the self-published material which might be rare and of location interest, but is it retention worthy?

The Committee agreed that another publisher list is needed to remove commitments on titles it’s not appropriate to commit to retain. Matthew will create and share a Google Document to get the list started.

Matthew felt any new MSCC retention criteria would have to weigh circulation rates differently because the one usage retention criterion used in the grant would not be a sufficient reason for a public library to retain a title for 15-years, but it would be too difficult to apply different circulation thresholds dependent on the library type. Deb wondered whether the new criteria should be what Matthew has been using in the MSCC collection analysis i.e. titles with 10 or fewer holdings in OCLC WorldCat and titles with zero Maine library holdings in OCLC WorldCat. MaineCat data could also be used to identify rarity.

After discussing when the clock started for the 5-year collection analysis the Committee agreed the next collection analysis should take place in 2019, which is five years after the first set of analysis. The analysis will include commitments made by new member libraries and those titles owned by the grant partners which were published or added post-2003 and were out of scope for the grant collection analysis.

The Committee will need to come back again to look at future collection analysis, including making a decision regarding whether there is a cut off period for analysis (e.g. only titles published or added 2003-2008 will be in-scope). Matthew commented that any retention criteria would also need to be approved by the MSCC Executive Committee. Matthew will also need to speak to the MSCC Executive Committee about funding for the collection analysis and with Sara Amato regarding her willingness to provide the data wrangling service that will facilitate the analysis.

Peggy discussed adding proactively commitments to new acquisitions of Maine titles. Matthew felt it made sense to add commitments to items once they are added to the collection rather than wait until another round of collection analysis. Deb has already added commitments to a few new acquisitions at the University of Maine.

3.    Project updates

a.    IMLS report submission

Matthew submitted the Maine Shared Collections Strategy (MSCS) final report to IMLS in April 2015.

b.    On-demand services — stats, record reload for Colby & UMaine, State of Maine documents & HathiTrust record move to URSUS

Stats

Matthew presented the monthly top ten on-demand record views (from MaineCat) he had compiled and posted to MELIBS and added to the Maine Shared Collections website. Matthew produced the stats using Google Analytics data. Matthew commented there is an interesting range of titles on the list. However, the number of views is very low, so for a title to get in the top ten it only needed to be viewed two times!

The number of MaineCat Print-On-Demand (POD) service requests continues to be low. As of today’s meeting only one request had been received since the service went back online earlier this year! Matthew felt the biggest single factor for the low usage is the price of the POD books, which is too high to compete with commercial vendors. The Committee agreed that the price was too high and that the items can be viewed electronically and/or printed without going through the POD process.

Record reloads for Colby & UMaine

The HathiTrust requires member institutions to annually send updated print holdings information in order to calculate fees and access. Using Sara’ Amato’s instructions and some further investigative work Alisia Revitt (Maine InfoNet) has compiled and submitted the University of Maine’s holding data. Colby have paid Sara to compile and submit their holdings data.

State of Maine documents

Peggy reported on a project she’s been working on with the HathiTrust regarding adding State of Maine documents to the public domain, so they are accessible in the digital collection. Peggy had been originally sent by Angelina Zaytsev (HathiTrust) a spreadsheet that contained all of the items that are in the Maine Collection. Peggy went through the spreadsheet and identified the 184 titles that are listed on the permission agreement. Peggy has now sent HathiTrust a list of titles which can be added to public domain. The list is at the item level and so has more title than the original list which was at the bib level. Peggy was not able to identify many of the titles which fall under Annual Report.

Matthew will look into when the next load of HathiTrust records will be to MaineCat because it should hopefully include the State of Maine documents Peggy has been working on.

At Deb’s request, Matthew will contact the HathiTrust regarding updating their Maine collection. Matthew will need to check who the contact should be for this work now that Jeremy York has left the HathiTrust.

HathiTrust record move to URSUS

The on-demand records are currently stored in SOLAR; Alisia Revitt will move the records to URSUS by the end of August. The original plan had been to move the records before now, but SOLAR has stayed around longer than expected, and the record submission to HathiTrust was a lot more involved than originally anticipated.

c.    Future changes to process for recording commitments in OCLC

Matthew reported on the proposed changes OCLC are making to the process for recording shared print information in WorldCat.

The current process is that libraries request a second shared print symbol e.g. MEUSP for University of Maine – Shared Collections and then add a 583 record commitment statement at the Local Holding Record (LHR) level. For MSCS’s 1.4 million grant commitments, Sara used the OCLC batch loading process to add the commitments. For the post-grant period where the numbers are a lot lower, Sharon Fitzgerald (University of Maine) and her team have been manually adding the commitments. There is then a separate process to add the commitments to item records in local catalogs. Again, Sara did the loads in batch during the grant and Matthew is adding commitments manually for post-grant commitment titles using a macro.

Originally, OCLC thought different lending rules would be associated with shared print items which would require a separate request process via another symbol. It was this thinking that led OCLC to charge an ILL fee for the use of a second symbol in ILLiad and Resource Sharing. However, libraries like the MSCS partners don’t have a separate lending process for shared print items, which is one of the reasons MSCS didn’t follow the OCLC metadata guidelines, and instead used two symbols for each holding in OCLC: both the main symbol, which will remain requestable, and the shared print symbol which will be a non-supplier.

Another issue with the shared print symbol is that if the holding library is NOT a subscriber to FirstSearch AND WorldCat is being accessed from an IP address which is NOT associated with a FirstSearch subscription, the Shared Print holding will NOT show in WorldCat. Matthew commented that the display issue also occurs with WorldCat Discovery Service.

The visibility of shared print commitments is also an issue. Sara and Matthew spoke with Bill Carney (OCLC) during the grant about the importance of being able to see a register of existing shared print commitments from multiple programs, which with the current model isn’t possible, as you only know a title has a commitment if you see the symbol. There are other programmatic issues with the LHR data such as the retention commitment dates not being machine readable.

Because of the issues discussed above, OCLC are developing a replacement shared print registration process. OCLC have established a Shared Print Advisory Council to provide advice on this process. By virtue of being Bob Kieft’s replacement as co-organizer of the Print Archive Network (PAN) forum at ALA annual and midwinter conferences, Matthew has been appointed to this Council. The Council was established 12 months ago, but Matthew attended his first meeting at the recent ALA Annual Conference. The Council has conference calls every 6 weeks and meets in-person at the ALA’s annual and midwinter conference.

Matthew showed a slide from Katie Birch’s (OCLC Director, Global Product Management) presentation at the ALA Annual Conference which outlines OCLC’s strategy for shared print. The process starts off with a group like MSCS who analyze their collection data (often with support of SCS) and then agree and allocate the retention commitments. Next the group would send OCLC the required data containing the minimum: OCLC #, OCLC Symbol and local system number to OCLC and they would create the Local Holding Record and ingest the data into OCLC. OCLC’s selling point for this is that it would do away with the need for local programs to batch load or manually add retention commitments and make the process more automated. The shared print symbol will be replaced by a shared print holding type which will flag that a title has a commitment. Matthew confirmed for Becky that at this stage he doesn’t know what the holding type looks like, but he hopes that by the time of the Committee’s next meeting he will have more to report on this and the OCLC plans in general.

After OCLC have registered the commitments they would then give the group data back which can be used to load the commitments locally. Matthew commented that he would like more information on the format of this data, so he can assess how it easy it would be to load it straight into local catalogs. Matthew would also like to speak to Sara about how much of a time saver this new registration would be. The Committee felt that someone like Sara with technical expertise who has been involved in a shared print project should be on the OCLC Advisory Council.

As well as registering commitments, OCLC are planning on offering a bundle of shared print services which libraries would subscribe to e.g. for enhanced resource sharing workflows and defining archive and service copies. The fee structure is still under development.

OCLC will convert MSCS’s current retention commitments from the second symbol to the new registration free of charge. MSCC will likely be included in a pilot project for the new process which will run from January – spring 2016.

Matthew commented that he’s still unsure what the effects of the new registration process will be in the long-term and whether MSCC will be charged for adding new commitments. However, as so few Maine libraries are OCLC members MaineCat will be the primarily place for MSCC commitments to be viewed. Matthew had spoken to OCLC about how it was unlikely small academic and public libraries would join OCLC simply for shared print.

The new registration model won’t affect the collection analysis side of MSCC, so Sara can continue to use the OCLC API to compare retention commitments with library’s print monograph collections.

d.    PAPR reload & updating commitment information in OCLC

Reload

Matthew showed the display of MSCC retention commitments in the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) Print Archives Preservation Registry (PAPR). Matthew commented that the new registration process for OCLC will concentrate on disclosing monograph commitments, so PAPR still has a place for journals and serials. However, Matthew did mention to OCLC and CRL representatives at ALA Annual that the multiple places for disclosure does place a burden on local staff.

CRL are going to be reloading holding information for MSCC, so once Matthew has more information on what involves he will be sending out a reminder to the Committee and Technical Services representatives to let him know if any changes to commitments have been made, so he can send a combined MSCC list to CRL. The Committee can use a spreadsheet Matthew had sent out previously to identify whether a title is included in PAPR. Matthew will send out the spreadsheets again. Joan felt it might be a good idea to note in records that a title has a commitment in PAPR, so staff know they need to send updates to Matthew.

Amy Wood (CRL) commented to Matthew at ALA Annual that the MSCC commitments are unique compared to the types of titles committed to retain by other programs in PAPR. Matthew commented this uniqueness is what the group aimed for when developing its retention criteria.

Updating commitment information in OCLC

In March, Matthew had back from CRL normalized OCLC #, MARC 561-1, MARC 583-1, and MARC 866-0 data which could be sent to OCLC to update in the Local Holding Records those same fields. The benefit for doing this work is that MSCC data would be better in line with OCLC recommendations for how retention information should be recorded. However, the updates would only affect a small subset of the journal titles MSCC committed to retain.

Matthew had asked in March whether this Committee and the MSCS Technical Services Committee felt the MSCC libraries should pay Sara to submit a new request to OCLC to update the records. Or alternatively, that local staff would manually update the records themselves. Matthew hadn’t received a definitive answer on this, so he wanted to check whether the Committee wanted this work doing. Deb felt it would depend on who would be expected to do the work, Sara or local Technical Services staff. Becky didn’t feel comfortable asking local Technical Services staff to do the work when it would only a benefit a small subset of the commitments made. Deb didn’t feel the work was necessary if it was just issues like comas being in the wrong place. Joan felt it would be useful to see some samples of what sorts of errors were included, so the Committee could evaluate whether the work is necessary.

The Committee agreed that in light of the MSCS Technical Services Committee not responding to say the records should be updated in OCLC the records will not be updated.

e.    MSCC collection analysis update – new libraries, marketing, and potential for additional data reporting

New libraries

23 libraries are in various stages of the MSCC collection analysis process. Approximately 1/3 of all Minerva have signed up and for some member institutions e.g. school and hospital libraries MSCC probably won’t be applicable. Matthew commented that he’s extremely pleased with the numbers of libraries that have participated thus far.

Matthew has spoken to Janet McKenney at the State Library about grant funding support to help bring in additional libraries. Grant funding could also be used to support the data cleanup work using the files Sara produced containing incorrect OCLC and ISBN numbers which individual libraries aren’t always in a position to fix themselves.

Matthew commented that there are always going to be some libraries that just don’t have data for MSCC to use in analysis. There are also some libraries who aren’t currently in MaineCat, which would make it difficult to view their commitments. Matthew has spoken to James Jackson Sanborn (Maine InfoNet, Executive Director) about options for non-contributors to disclose their commitments in MaineCat.

Matthew presented data which can be found in the spreadsheet “MSCC Data Comparisons” (see “MSCC” Google folder). The spreadsheet shows that there are plenty of opportunities for libraries to weed titles they own locally which already have a Maine Shared Collections retention commitment at another library. The average percentage of in-scope collection with a retention commitment is 39% (includes commitments made by new members), but it ranges from a high of 66% at UMaine Presque Isle to a low of 22% at Witherle. Unsurprisingly, the percentage of titles where there are fewer than 10 holdings in OCLC or no other Maine holdings for in OCLC are low, approximately 0% of a library’s collection. Deb commented that data from the spreadsheet Matthew presented should be added to the MSCC website, partly because it could allay fears that libraries will be expected to make a large amount of retention commitments.

Marketing

Recruiting new libraries to participate requires Matthew to be proactive because libraries aren’t generally going to be the ones to make the initial contact. Matthew has presented at library meetings, posted on MELIBS and social media, and written articles for the MLA newsletter. Peggy commented that she had been telling libraries about the service of MSCC.

Potential for additional data reporting

Matthew showed an example of the data which is included in the MSCC collection analysis spreadsheets. Matthew asked the Committee to consider whether there is an opportunity beyond MSCC for looking at the collective collection of Maine and if there is data MSCC should be capturing or reporting on that could inform library’s collection development planning.

Call number, classification numbers, and publication date were suggested as potential data that could be useful to look at subject strengths and the age of the collective collection. Peggy discussed collection strengths at libraries for example, at Northern Maine Community College. However, Matthew had looked into collection strengths list of the Maine State Library website and found that the titles in these collections were often not rare and the type of material (e.g. textbooks) that quickly became superseded; for these reasons the titles weren’t always on the retention lists for new MSCC libraries. The exception to this is the University of Maine Fort Kent’s Acadian Collection that contains rare material which was on their retention list.

f.    New MSCC member libraries update– additional commitments made, retention criteria, shelf checking & representation on Committee

Additional commitments made

So far, 12 libraries have formally joined the Maine Shared Collections Cooperative, which means membership has more than doubled over the last 12 months. Of those, 12 new members, 10 have agreed to retain a combined total of 408 titles. For ease of implementation all MSCC retention commitments end on the same date, June 30, 2028. Matthew has added a spreadsheet titled “MSCC Post-Grant CTR Titles” to the “MSCC” Google folder which contains a list of titles that new MSCC libraries have committed to retain. Matthew will continue to update the spreadsheet as new commitments are made.

Matthew confirmed for Deb that Sara uses live OCLC data when compiling the MSCC collection analysis spreadsheets and for commitments that aren’t recorded in OCLC she uses the “MSCC Post-Grant CTR Titles” spreadsheet.

Retention commitments are only disclosed in catalogs once Matthew receives a signed copy of the MSCC MOU. Matthew confirmed for Deb that the number of commitments will rise once libraries that have gone through the analysis have agreed to their proposed retention commitments. So far all the libraries Matthew has worked with have indicated they are willing to make retention commitments and join MSCC. John Barden, Director of the Law and Legislative Reference Library which had considered self-nominating titles for retention did eventually decide that couldn’t join MSCC because of language in the MOU referring to membership fees. Matthew confirmed for Deb that libraries are only expected to pay a fee for collection analysis, but that the MSCC Executive Committee wanted to retain the authority to set membership fees in the future. However, fees were unlikely to receive membership approval and libraries could chose to leave MSCC.

Retention criteria

Generally, the titles identified as retention candidates are those where there are fewer than ten holdings in OCLC, don’t have an existing MSCC retention commitment, or are Maine related. Libraries can also self-nominate titles for retention if they choose not to go through the collection analysis process.

Most of the titles committed to retain are local histories and fiction titles. Matthew commented that he’s still concerned by some of the self-published titles MSCC are retaining, but this can be looked at in the five year review of commitments (see above).

Matthew commented that some of the new academic library members for example, Thomas College and the University of Maine Fort Kent have liked the option to transfer material for retaining at another MSCC library.

Shelf checking

Some of the new MSCC libraries are checking a title is actually on the shelf before agreeing to a retention commitment. Matthew is going to speak with Lizanne Payne about how MSCC should be recording this checking in the MARC 583 field because the current guidance from OCLC doesn’t appear to cover this type of validation.

Representation on Committee

Cynthia Young (Eastern Maine Community College) will represent the Community Colleges on this Committee, but was unable to attend today’s meeting. David Nutty has asked Evelyn Greenlaw to replace Lanny Lumbert (who retired) as the University of Southern Maine representative on the Committee.

As each new library joins MSCC, Matthew lets their director know who will represent them on this Committee and the representative know the libraries they are representing. If there comes a time when there is a significant vote of some kind affecting policy (the type that would be shared with members in advance), then each representative will speak to the libraries they represent. Otherwise Matthew will remain the main contact for any questions about Maine Shared Collections, including issues they want raised at future meetings. Public library representation is assigned by library consulting districts and Deb will represent UMaine system libraries. Ana confirmed for Matthew that she is willing to be the representative for Thomas College who Matthew is waiting to receive a signed MOU from.

g.    Innovative, Inc. fix for 583 flow

MSCC are currently using a fix that Sara developed to get the MSCC retention note to appear in MaineCat. The fix involves pulling retention data from OCLC which means new commitments by non-OCLC members aren’t currently visible in MaineCat. However, the latest version of Inn-Reach which Maine now has includes a fix for the flow of 583 retention information from the local to union catalog; Matthew has submitted a ticket to Maine InfoNet for them to investigate turning this functionality on in MaineCat.

h.    MSCC involvement in EAST

Matthew attended a launch meeting for the Eastern Academic Scholars Trust (EAST) on June 22nd, which was for libraries that have formally signed up to participate in the project of which there are 47 libraries from Maine to Pennsylvania. EAST has secured funding from Mellon and Davis and are about to embark on their analysis of approximately 10 million print monographs from a diverse range of ILS’s, many of which there is only circulation data for the last few years, Matthew commented that it’s going to be interesting to see how EAST and SCS (who they have signed on to perform the collection analysis) manage the comparisons.

Colby College is the only MSCC library that is going to participate in the collection analysis as an individual library and have their print monograph collection included in the analysis. Ana is currently looking at how to extract the required data for analysis.

SCS will extract MSCS retention commitment data from OCLC so the commitments can be used as a factor in the analysis (similarly to the way MSCS compared overlap with HathiTrust).

Matthew reported on a few items of note from the EAST meeting:

●    Non-circulating titles are out of scope for their analysis, so are serials for the time being.
●    There is no requirement for an OCLC reclamation, SCS will perform data normalization.
●    As part of their grant proposal EAST promised to carry out sample validation of titles.
●    EAST are only going to compare their holdings with MSCS grant partners commitments.

Matthew and Ana will keep the Committee updated on EAST activities. Matthew commented that in the future MSCC may include EAST retention commitments as a factor in its own analysis.

4.    Next meeting date

The Committee’s next meeting will be in February 2016 (after ALA Annual Conference). Matthew will send out a Doodle Poll closer to the date (with some snow days built in!).