...
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. [1] |
[1] Example from UC Irvine Law: 65 CDs that come with regularly-updated legal materials have the value “CD-ROM” in "Physical Items"."Physical Item Details"."Material Type", but “Book - Physical” or “Other Serial - Physical” in "Physical Items"."Bibliographic Details"."Resource Type.” Overall, however, the number of mis-matches is small. On the whole UC Irvine campus, for example, only ~315 CD-ROM items have "Bibliographic Details". "Resource Type” values of “Book - Electronic” or “Book - Physical”. In a system with millions of Electronic and Physical books, these differences are not significant.
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
AASA-PT | Review Draft | ||
AASA-PT |
| Final Decision |