2023-02-27 10 am AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Record Zoom meeting

Review previous notes and tasks

5m

@Ellen Augustiniak (Unlicensed)

Reminder: Share any related policies/guidelines/local-practices that inform statistics.

Actions from last meeting are still under development.

Share any up-to-date, enlightening cataloging or acq policies to Google Drive. - due 6 March.

Harmonization Analysis: Sub team Update

Update and discussion.

Request for input on Schedule D data requirements and proposed approach.

30m

Harmonization sub team (Michele, Daisy to lead)

Update: The subteam has now reviewed all UCL/UCOP data requirements and proposed adjustments for clarity, harmonization, and to standardize with both ARL and ACRL. An overview (e.g., table) of the proposed changes will be circulated for project team review and feedback - likely for the next meeting.

Schedule D

• Schedule D is currently utilized by UCOP Risk Management, to submit to our insurer; are there additional campuses uses for Schedule D?

• Strategy (based on principle to stop/avoid manual counts): To only report to OP/Risk Management/Insurer what is catalogued and can be reported via Alma Analytics.

• The subteam discussed two potential strategies:

  • We/the UC Libraries could try to align “Material Types“ in Alma Analytics to the materials currently listed in Schedule D or to a modified Schedule D list (e.g., where some terms are “folded up” into a higher level category.

  • Or, we could utilize “Resource Type” in Alma Analytics (which is based on the MARC headers), and then provide OP/Risk/Insurer with the entire export/table.

  • Subteam recommends second approach (using full Resource Types table). This will require OP/Risk/Insurance buy-in, but seems like a viable option (dww to confirm after this project team discussion).

• See Material Types and Resource Types tables.

• Discussion:

  • One issue in advancing harmonization is what UCOP is asking for through Schedule D; thus far, and spread across different ILSs pre-SILS, the libraries have bent our data to meet the physical holdings by location and material types listed in Schedule D. But now that we are on the same system, we’re seeking a standardized/set approach to types (consistent across campuses) for meeting schedule D requirements; such a change (to the types listed in D) will require us to propose a revised Schedule D to UCOP (as the libraries likely designed the original Scheduled D, this seems like an appropriate/reasonable path).

  • In Alma, Material Type is “alterable” - we can make changes. But Resource Type is purely back-end and based on MARC header (not alterable - these are fixed types).

  • For Material Type, the differences in use are natural (e.g., where campuses are using “Issue” vs. “Bound Issue”; or “Book” vs “Volume”); they also likely represent some edits made on the fly (to add type for iPad, Tablet, etc.).

  • For Schedule A, the subteam is also proposing that we use Resource Type for electronic resources (Schedule A; Title subject area). For Schedule D, proposing Resource Type from physical item. More details to follow.

  • Overall: Project team supports this change, though they note the need to socialize locally and with UCOP.

Wrap up

Review actions and decisions

5m

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion