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).
@Gem Stone-Logan@Ellen Augustiniak@Daisy Nip@Danielle Westbrook will establish (if not already established) and begin populating decision pages for the 04/17 meeting (they don’t need to be done, but underway and towards completeness).
@John Riemer@Susan Boone will wait to populate the RLF decision page until after the additional consultation with our RLF and SP colleagues is underway.
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:
Consultation with RLF and SP colleagues will be important. Based on this consultation, 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, 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.
Decision: We agree that consulting with RLF and SP colleagues will be beneficial - to document what they see as the pros/cons of the three functional approaches to reporting RLF holdings via Alma Analytics NZ.
@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.
4
Consultation with Liability and Property Programs (LPP) at UCOP
5m - Danielle W
LPP sees no issues with the AASAPT proposed shift to Resource Type via Alma Analytics for reporting many of our physical holdings by location; LPP is aware that for accuracy, some holdings (such as Special Collections – manuscript) may continue to be reported through other means – to more meaningfully represent holdings for risk/insurance purposes.
LPP notes that written context will be required for the submission of 22/23 physical holdings by location for the underwriters (they are chiefly concerned with values and aggregation of values – so we/the UC Libraries can create a crosswalk, from the old resource categories to the new Material Types).
5
Wrap up
5m - Danielle W
6
Parking Lot - Capture important topics for future discussion
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu