| 2 | Timeline check-in - What is our action plan for report(s)? | 10m - Ellen | Work Plan Proposal: decision pages for most significant issues, e.g. Resource Type at bibliographic level vs. Material Type, and other type-ness elements (e.g., material type) at the item level (Gem) Manuscript resource type at the bibliographic level for physical item counts (Ellen, Danielle) Regional Library Facilities - physical item counts (John, Susan) Dates for physical items - created, received, etc. How to ensure we (Daisy, Ellen) Include items we have (e.g., items with receive date in the future due to migration artifacts) Exclude items we don’t really have (e.g., on-order items.) Reflect current issues with date dates (Creation Date and Received Date); acknowledging that this is known and just impacts Added by FY and Deleted by FY
Discussion: Let’s distill our conversation - and the “why’s” - in decision pages. This is great for transparency, and also ultimately supports the creation of our Report. What lives in a decision page vs. in our notes (or in the final report, which will be public too)? Where there was discussion and consultation leading to a decision - these are candidates for decision pages. Not all consultations require a decision page (e.g., if our selected approach/recommendations are endorsed by key stakeholders but those stakeholders aren’t further shaping the output), though we should document these consultations/engagements too.
| Decision: Gem, Ellen, Danielle, John, Susan and Daisy have all agreed to co-lead authoring decision pages, for AASAPT review. (See specific decision pages listed to the left, for specific assignments). | |
| 3 | RLFs - Develop RLF stats proposal to bring to SILS Leadership Group / DOC / CoUL | 30m - Harmonization team | Current options for RLF statistics via NZ Analytics = Annual stats reported with: NRLF + SRLF = parts of Berkeley & UCLA data exports NRLF + SRLF = distinct reporting units (i.e., stats will be run for all ten campuses and the two RLFs - 12 distinct reporting units) (Status quo) RLF holdings attributed to original depositor. There are known issues with this approach, such as when there is no original depositor for: shared print versions of licensed content (to a degree) JACS shared print - with multiple campuses submitting a copy for JACS, the selected copy is due to condition or whoever deposited first, and the other copies are discarded – “original depositor” isn’t as meaningful here
Proposal: Plan on outlining the three functional approaches in NZ reporting in the final report (for determination by the appropriate group), but first consult with our RLF and Shared Print colleagues (plan to invite them to join discussion at next week’s AASAPT meeting). Discussion: 5m - Danielle WConsultation with RLF and SP colleagues will be important. Based on this consultation, we could provide a recommendation. We’re seeking their the AASAPT can outline the three approaches that are functionally possible and in alignment with our principles/goals (centralizing/normalizing); if we have a recommendation for which path should be pursued, AASAPT can include that. Confirmation: From our RLF and SP colleagues, we’re seeking their expert feedback - the pros/cons of the various approaches. There are sensitivities to how collections are reported and have been historically reported. UC community members can get nervous, when scholarly materials are shifted offsite (context is important - climate controlled, held in perpetuity, etc.). Both support the one collection ethos, and acknowledge that how we then count/talk about the collective collection is challenging, particularly when stats/counts continue to Being mindful of many different needs and interests;
| 4 | Risk management at OP | , including RLF collections. This can be a political topic - when collections are moved offsite, context is important (these facilities are climate-controlled and secure; items are held in perpetuity; all UC faculty, students and researchers have equitable access to these materials, regardless of original depositor; we can also still attribute holdings to original depositor, etc.). Our service commitment for the RLFs is also important (preservation services, and to provide ongoing/continued access to offsite collections). The collective collection / one collection ethos is incredibly important; also acknowledge that how we count and talk about the collective collection can be challenging, particularly when there continue to be stats/reporting obligations to third parties as well. All physical holdings are owned by the Regents; but in many scenarios, original depositor/purchaser is information that is still valued. Now that we are within one enterprise system, we ultimately can report our holdings information in many different ways - functionally, we’re not limited to one approach. AASAPT seeks to be mindful of the many different needs and interests around RLF stats; in the final report, AASAPT will aim to detail the functional approaches available to us through AA-NZ as well as findings from our consultations with the RLF and SP experts (as well as from the project team), regarding pros/cons/opportunities.
| | - Danielle Westbrook will email Tin, Tim, Alison and Anna, providing an outline/context of our discussion so far as it relates to reporting RLF holdings, and see if they’re free to join next week’s meeting to discuss pros/cons (Danielle will cc' Ellen, John and Susan on this exchange); if our RLF and SP colleagues have questions or need additional context/info/briefing, we can either provide that in writing/email or meet with them in advance, prior to the full team meeting.
|