2024-07-01 10AM AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Assemble - 5 min

• Notetaker assignment

• Record meeting

• Salwa Ismail will be attending in Chan’s place

Notetaker: @Ellen Augustiniak

All

Walkthrough of draft review files - 30 min

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bzidSrnJICyLQlocxbbTz4XYTgwsW1iGyBnEBZZVFhQ/edit?gid=1524452553#gid=1524452553&range=A1:A2

Daisy

• Locations (“Categories” of libraries) -

  • waiting confirmation on RLF deposits - a note at the item level is where the information lives

• User groups - ok

• Electronic - ok

• Withdrawals - temporarily applied to prototype

Physical inventory totals vs. Risk Management by building reports - Berkeley, Davis, LA, and Riverside (@Chan Li @Alison Lanius @John Riemer @Michele Potter) are on standby to help with Daisy’s follow up research

"Special" library category designation - 10 min

Question from UCB - how is this designation determined?

General question: Do we still need to delineate stats from the NZ by special collections locations (SCA) and non-SCA locations? This was part of the original prototype; it is not used in UCL/UCOP annual stats. With AASA-PT’s original report, our recommendation was that special collections stats should not be generated from the NZ (this was endorsed by CoUL). If a few campuses do use this data - should we provide it to them separately, as opposed to part of this process (that way, everybody doesn’t need to confirm SCA locations each year - reduce workload)?

All

• in 2023, this was provided in communications with SCA colleagues in HOSC about how to count “Manuscript Units”. (See Statistics: Manuscript Resource Type - item counts

  • It showed SCA colleagues that their non-special items (e.g. regular physical books that circulate, but that happen to live in an SCA location) are still counted.

This will be a future project.

Summary: do we need separate counts for SCA locations done in the NZ? Campuses that need them for single-campus planning can (i.e., probably should) do them locally.

Should we remove the “electronic” and “physical” designation from the resource type labels? (if time) - 10 min

Sample output of what this would look like:

Open

All

Some complications:

• More collapsed groups? Like “Journal (Ceased publication)” bundled into “Journal”?

• More removing of formats, e.g. “ - Microfilm” and “ - Microfiche.” This gets complicated because “Microforms” is also its own resource type.

None - ran out of time.

Wrap up - 5 min

Review actions and decisions

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion