...
| Page Properties | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Recommendation
...
|
Recommendation
Use MMS ID because it is easy and consistent, and because other options will result in undercounting. We will end up overcounting titles where there are multiple bibliographic records for the same thing, especially for electronic resources. However, there is widespread understanding of the limitations of this approach and acceptance of its utility.
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 constructing report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreed upon by the UC Libraries, must exclude items based a variety of parameters… |
...
Report the total number of titles managed and maintained by the library that are cataloged and made ready for use.
Deduplicate titles by counting multiple copies of the same manifestation as one title.
Identical content in different formats should not be deduplicated, and each format should be counted as a different title. For example, a serial title available in print, microform and online would be counted as three titles.
Count different editions and versions of the same work as separate titles since they denote depth in the collection.
Counting the 245 field when the library provides stewardship for those resources may be sufficient.
Alma Options (Count distinct) | Notes |
|---|---|
Title Normalized, separated by format | This undercounts unique titles because works with different authors and editions are not distinguished. |
Title Author Combined and Normalized, separated by format | This undercounts unique titles because works in different editions are not distinguished |
Concat(Title Author Combined and Normalized, Edition), separated by format | This can undercount unique titles because generically-named titles that are actually different things do not have enough metadata to distinguish them. |
MMS ID | This overcounts unique titles. |
Dependencies
Questions to consider
This is especially true for electronic resources, where we are using bibliographic records of varying quality from many different sources in order to provide access. |
Example from UCI Law
At Irvine, Counts from the Titles Subject Area where:
Lifecycle = “In Repository”
Resource Type is “Book - Electronic”
Library Code (Physical) contains LAW OR Library Code (Electronic) contains LAW
Option | Title Count at UCI Law (rounded) |
|---|---|
Distinct Title Author Combined and Normalized | 274,000 |
Distinct Concat(Title Author Combined and Normalized, Edition) | 280,000 |
Distinct Title (Complete) | 301,000 |
Num of Titles (Active) | 364,000 |
Questions to consider
How much concern about duplication exists in the system? In other words, do we already have widespread acceptance for possible overcounting based on shared and longstanding professional expertise about metadata limitations? Answer: There is some concern but it tends to be context-specific. Systemwide, there does already exist a shared understanding among campus experts that libraries regularly report record counts as an approximation for title counts, and title count data is inherently imprecise.
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
Gather initial feedback from RM colleagues based on prototype |
| Accomplished via email | Complete |
Develop proposal for decision-making, with input from a couple of campus experts to help shape future, more inclusive process |
| See meeting notes: 2023-08-21 10 am AASA-PT Meeting Notes | Complete |