See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups
Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED
Recommendation
For Schedule A, we recommend using the Bibliographic Resource Type and for Schedule D, we recommend using the Physical Item Details Resource Type.
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 building report queries at the Network Zone according to templates agreements upon by the UC Libraries, will functionally have to exclude items and titles based a variety of parameters – likely resource type and location (specific to campus special collections), and any another group of query parameters identified by campus partners. |
UCOP | Likely, this specifically pertains to our Risk Management Office, who reports holdings information to our insurer, for compliance purposes. |
Reasoning
After review, the AASA-PT Harmonization group discovered that resource type is much more consistent across campuses than material type.
Background
The AASA-PT Harmonization group reviewed all the UCOP statistics data that can be retrieved via Alma Analytics. One of the factors considered during this review was the existing ACRL and ARL requirements.
One of the challenges campuses are facing is what UCOP is asking for is not reflected in our Alma system. As a result, campuses spend a significant amount of time attempting to manipulate the data into the requested format. One of the goals of the harmonization group was to find the easiest way to retrieve these types of statistics using an approach that takes advantage of Alma’s functionality.
Within Alma, Material type is an alterable set of fields and so campuses have customized them extensively according to local needs. However, resource type come directly from the bib header and, as a result, tends to be much more consistent across campuses.
AASA members were provided a survey and requested to gather feedback from their campuses on the impact of using Resource Type for the UCOP statistics.
Options Considered
Option 1 | Option 2 | |
---|---|---|
Description | Material Type | Resource Type |
Pros | 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. |
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
---|---|---|---|
AASA-PT | Review Draft | ||
AASA-PT |
| Final Decision |