| Item & Desired Outcome | Time & Facilitator | Notes | Decisions | Actions |
|---|
| 1 | Record Review previous notes and tasks | 5m - Ellen | For determining the various exclusions (e.g., special collections and archives) and how to isolate specific data points (e.g., print course reserves circ), AASAPT reps should feel free to take the time to consult and work this out now - we can and will iterate, based on what we learn; but investing the time now will hopefully mean we have usable NZ reports for 22/23 reporting (not requiring additional, local tinkering on NZ reports). | | - Danielle will chat with Daisy – what is a reasonable deadline for AASAPT reps to complete local consultation for DDA, SC&A, Affiliates, Grouping, etc. (anything else still outstanding). This deadline is for building out July 01 reports for 22/23 UC Libraries statistics, as opposed to being specific to our SILS-LG report.
|
| 2 | RLF | 10m Susan Boone | Statistics: RLF holdings Discussion 2b doesn’t fully account for shared print. Why are we reporting RLF holdings? For schedule D, we are reporting for insurance purposes. For schedule A (physical collections) - it’s to account for the 15 M vols and vol equivalents stored at the RLFs; would ideally like to reflect all shared print. Hybrid approach - represents that we can report this data in many ways. Shared print campuses and RLFs, with SP print in place, they’re coming up with a harmonized approach to reporting shared print (for reporting in Alma Analytics) What is AASAPT’s recommendation? Do we have one recommendation? Those that prefer option 2b note that they locally do not keep records for items sent to the RLFs - they are viewed as the persistent, collective collections. Shared reflection that status quo (option 3) is fine. For ARL reporting, some campuses noted a preference for 3. Others, based on need to continue to report campus deposits in RLFs to local constituents, want option 3.
| Decision: We will advance options 2b and 3 (re-naming) as two recommended approaches for SILS-LG (and/or higher up) to decide upon; report will reflect the interests/considerations that AASA-PT discussed. The report can also note the broader questions to consider, regarding collective collection, shared print and RLF holdings, and that we ultimately can pursue many different reporting paths (not just the two options, though those are the two that should be considered for 22/23 reporting). | |
| 3 | DDA - What are the concerns? Do we need to thoroughly review and document them? | 10m John Riemer | For UC, what do we want to track / count? Proposal right now is to count eDDA in a separate column, so that we have non-eDDA totals (e.g., owned/licensed eBooks) and eDDA totals; folks can then report both or just one. We can report eDDA at the collection level. For some campuses (but not all) we also have the data via Alma Analytics to distinguish purchased eDDA (and so those holdings can just be counted as owned eBooks) and eDDA candidates – the discoverable but not yet owned eBooks; for other campuses, we don’t have the metadata available in Alma Analytics, and so we can just report all eDDA (both owned and candidates); potential recommendation there, to suggest clean up so that eDDA purchases and eDDA candidates can be distinguished, where possible.
| Decision: So long as it’s technically feasible (and we think it is), we will report eDDA holdings as a separate total from the owned and licensed electronic holdings. | - Daisy to share current table/output for DAA by campus and DDA collection; ALL to review and note missing collections (e.g., there may be a Taylor & Francis EBA collections) - both different collections and other terms (e.g., PDA, EBA, DDA) that we should search/filter the ePortfolio collections by.
|
| 4 | Check in on campus forms & other query filters needed in NZ | 20m round-robin | Campus customizations UCB: Work still underway UCD: Done course reserves; still working on DDA; local consultation with Daisy and local experts on SC&A UCI: Meeting this week with local experts - underway. UCLA: Affiliates - defining list - done that; course reserves still underway; and dda, waiting for discussion today UCM: No affiliates (Done!); course reserves done; DDA - fine if separated, as plan to report; SC& and withdrawn underway UCR: Course reserves (location - reserves) is done; SC&A is done; DDA - can do under e-Inventory but titles need more mapping, to filter; DN might still need some info, but info on all have been shraed UCSF: Work underway; defining affiliates under way; course reserves should be by location; DDA is a mess; SC&A is by location or branch - should be straightforward). UCSC: Need to double check on affiliates; SC&A completed; DDA, need to double check.
| | |
| 5 | Wrap up - Review actions and decisions | 5m - Danielle | | | |
| 6 | Parking Lot - Capture important topics for future discussion | | Alma Analytics keeps a database of deleted records. For electronic content, many records get deleted so that they can be re-done. Can we have guidance for how to notate withdrawn items, so that we can report withdrawn items and not just all deleted records? Cloud app - Item Updater with Excel (use excel sheet with barcodes, batch add new column with new notes; same column headers as API, but no key needed). FYI, if Cloud Apps are enabled, this is open to all (across roles).
There is a systemwide UC eBooks Strategies Team. Do we want to chat with them? Or is there a broader recommendation, to ask maybe that they consider/recommend how the system might approach DDA reporting (if different from the approach recommended by AASAPT)?
| | |