2023-04-03 10 am AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Record Zoom meeting

Review previous notes and tasks

3m - Ellen

Manuscripts - decision page review

2m - Ellen

• Draft decision page has been started to document the upcoming decision related to Manuscripts (and other special collection resource types) – whether to include these types in Alma Analytic exports, or maintain local/campus manual reporting. The page will include guidance/reasoning from our special collections experts.

• We are building this decision page for transparency and shared understanding amongst ourselves and our UCL colleagues; it may also be helping to those outside of UC who are considering similar special collections reporting questions.

Harmonization report review & discussion

• Overview of changes to Schedules A and D, as discussed in the poll -https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oMSHhEsoNEDhW4CzaT5HyARnHDwSzjxs

• Recent UCL/UCOP annual stats submissions are available here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10ykI4NeZf1OZ-59pnCxgSChs1MfTXEX_?usp=share_link

30m - Harmonization subteam / Daisy

Please note:

• We are still waiting to meet with HOSC; accordingly, manuscript Resource Types are included in the export, as are other Special Collections materials. As discussed - if HOSC wants to maintain counting/tracking outside of Alma Analytics, that is totally fine and we can remove those counts from the export (to then add the manual counts outside of AA).

• Daisy and Danielle have also reached out to SRLF and NRLF colleagues, to determine how to best incorporate RLF counts for campuses (likely: remove SRLF and NRLF holdings from UCLA and UCB reporting; then run RLF-specific reports for everyone (including LA and B), by original depositor. Still to explore: The extent to which some shared print holdings can no longer be associated with their original depositor - is this the case for some SP holdings?

Discussion

• Receive Date - right now, reports using Receive Date include some future dates (e.g., report run in March 2023; dates included for June 2023).

  • Should investigate filing a ticket with Ex Libris. (action - DN)

  • Right now, Received Date yields higher counts than Creation Date. Need to investigate. Potential misuse of Received Date. (action)

• Aggregated totals provided by Ex Libris do not count when the item ID equals zero. For example, if physical item ID = zero, the Ex Libris aggregated total wouldn’t include these items. DN consulted with SILS Ops - they note that these are relevant records and should be counted).

  • When reporting based on a count of the Physical ID (which includes physical item IDs that are zero), it isn’t currently loading (it crashes). Daisy is investigating (might be the # of filters applied).

  • Could also look at COUNT(DISTINT(Physical Item Id)) - action.

• In using Resource Types for reporting (mapped from the MARC header) - there are less unknown/null results, when compared to Material Types categories.

• Portfolio ID count includes records where the variable = zero; again, SILS Ops recommends using the ID count (as opposed to the aggregated Ex Libris count), as does Daisy.

• Between 22/23 and 23/24 reporting, we can analyze exports to identify priority data clean-up areas. Can use reporting to track/support related data clean-up efforts.

• Activation Date for eResources: at UCSC, this wasn’t automatically populated if they didn’t go through the “activation task list.” Potentially, inconsistencies in how this date is populated. This field might be unreliable - action - needs further analysis.

• Can we refer to data fields in a more controlled way? → We can/should refer to them by their dimensions (acknowledging this database is complex). PhysicalItem.PhysicalItemDetails.MaterialType. We just need to include/reference the breadcrumbs.

Update: Engaging UCOP colleagues about proposed changes

5m - Danielle

• DWW spoke with colleagues from Budget, Analysis & Planning (folks we work with annually, to share data for the UC Budget for Current Operations). The proposed changes do not impact the data that they/we use specifically for the report; they do not use the library data in any other ways, and so not share the data internally with others; so BAP has no concerns and supports us in our efforts to streamline.

• DWW had an existing conversation open with Liability and Property Programs about the Library Unit Values table; wanted to wrap that, before moving onto the proposed changes. DWW had now summarized proposed changes for LPP, including outstanding questions/elements tbd by special collections experts, to see if LPP has any concerns. Waiting for response.

Decision: Our colleagues in UCOP Budget, Analytis and Planning have no concerns with our proposed changes; they also confirmed that they do not report/share our data beyond the libraries chapter in the UC Budget for Current Operations, which the Budget office and the libraries co-author.

Wrap up

5m - Danielle

Parking Lot - Capture important topics for future discussion