Page Comparison

Option 1 -

NRLF + SRLF are reported as part of the UC Berkeley & UCLA data exports

The RLFs share an IZ with these 2 campuses.  Completion of a Schedule D with the rest of the campus buildings might be easier.

Does not address interest in reporting the totality of all items ever acquired & never withdrawn, regardless of where stored.

Does not reflect original depositors' “liability” for lost or damaged materials.

Represents a drastic change in data reporting.

Option 2a -

RLFs as distinct reporting units

RLF staff are physically closer to the holdings and greater familiarly with the bibliographic data, so might have more accurate view of what is held.

 RLFs are sharing and IZ with a nearby campus, and each party must tease out the appropriate data.

 If If RLFs aspire to be “One collection, two locations,” this falls short of that.

 For For ARL reporting the RLFs are not members, despite having collections large enough to qualify as such.

Option 2b -

RLFs as distinct reporting units for persistent items;

non-persistent items (Special Collections and non-circulating/restricted materials), reported as part of the campuses’ holdings

For non-persistent items, a distinction needs to be made between processed non-circ items (countable) and unprocessed backlog overflow storage items (not countable).  Special collections staff probably are better positioned to distinguish their materials held at the RLFs by using location codes.

 Schedule Schedule D would need to reflect all of what is physically located in a building, whether persistent or not.  Schedule A reporting would have to distinguish between non-circ RLF holding and everything else.

Option 3 -

Holdings attributed to depositing campus. (Status quo)

 On some campuses, there is a political need to report the totality of all items ever acquired & never withdrawn, regardless of where stored.

 Not Not all RLF deposits originate with a campus, e.g. items going into a Shared Print collection from the outset, not previously held on a campus.

Option 4 –

Hybrid approach (which combines Options 1, 2a, 3)

There are multiple audiences for the collected data and differing reporting needs.

In the case of constructing a overview of the UC collective collection, some care must be taken to avoid double counting.