...
Resource Type provides the most consistent and descriptive option across campuses. For physical materials, the resource type would be pulled from "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type". For electronic materials, the resource type would be pulled from "E-Inventory"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type".
Impact
Stakeholder group | Impact |
|---|---|
UC Libraries | Determinations around what and how we report are for the most part managed/owned by the UC Libraries (i.e., shared ownership). |
CDL | CDL analysts, who are responsible for building report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreements upon by the UC Libraries, will functionally have to exclude items and titles based a variety of parameters – likely resource type and location (specific to campus special collections), and any another group of query parameters identified by campus partners. |
UCOP | Likely, this specifically pertains to our Risk Management Office, who reports holdings information to our insurer, for compliance purposes. |
...
Options Considered
Option 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Option 4 | Option 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description | "Physical Items"."Physical Item Details"."Material Type" | "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type" | "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Category of Material" | "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Material Type" | Other data elements |
Pros | Available at the item level. | Already standardized across campuses. Fewer unknown/null results | |||
Cons | Customized extensively based on local campus needs. If we wanted to use this, we’d need to standardize local cataloging across campuses. | Campuses cannot pull Resource Type for CDL-managed Electronic Resources. These numbers would need to be pulled within NZ Analytics. Because resource type isn’t at the physical item level, some granularity will be lost. |
...