| 2 | Timeline check-in - What is our action plan for report(s)? | 10m - Ellen | Work Plan Proposal: decision pages for most significant issues, e.g. Resource type Type at bibliographic level vs. Material Type, and other type-ness elements (e.g., material type) at the item level Manuscript resource type at the bibliographic level for physical item counts Regional Library Facilities - physical item counts Dates for physical items - created, received, etc. How to ensure we Include items we have (e.g., items with receive date in the future due to migration artifacts) Exclude items we don’t really have (e.g., on-order items.) Reflect current issues with date dates (Creation Date and Received Date); acknowledging that this is known and just impacts Added by FY and Deleted by FY
Discussion: | | |
| 3 | RLFs - Develop RLF stats proposal to bring to SILS Leadership Group / DOC / CoUL | 30m - Harmonization team | Current options for RLF statistics via NZ Analytics = Annual stats reported with: NRLF + SRLF = parts of Berkeley & UCLA data exports NRLF + SRLF = distinct reporting units (i.e., stats will be run for all ten campuses and the two RLFs - 12 distinct reporting units) (Status quo) RLF holdings attributed to original depositor. There are known issues with this approach, such as when there is no original depositor for: shared print versions of licensed content (to a degree) JACS shared print - with multiple campuses submitting a copy for JACS, the selected copy is due to condition or whoever deposited first, and the other copies are discarded – “original depositor” isn’t as meaningful here
Proposal: Plan on outlining the three functional approaches in NZ reporting in the final report (for determination by the appropriate group), but first consult with our RLF and Shared Print colleagues (plan to invite them to join discussion at next week’s AASAPT meeting). Discussion: Consultation with RLF and SP colleagues will be important. Based on this consultation, we could provide a recommendation. We’re seeking their feedback - the pros/cons of the various approaches. There are sensitivities to how collections are reported and have been historically reported. UC community members can get nervous, when scholarly materials are shifted offsite (context is important - climate controlled, held in perpetuity, etc.). Both support the one collection ethos, and acknowledge that how we then count/talk about the collective collection is challenging, particularly when stats/counts continue to Being mindful of many different needs and interests;
| | |