| 2 | Regional Library Facilities. Background, pros, and cons of three different options for reporting physical item counts at RLFs | 30m - Danielle | RLF and Shared Print experts (guests): Alison Wohlers (UCOP), Anna Striker (UCOP), Tim Converse (UC Berkeley), and Tin Tran (UCLA) Functionally, there are three options for reporting RLF holdings via Alma Analytics Network Zone for UCL/UCOP annual stats. NRLF + SRLF are reported as part of the UC Berkeley & UCLA data exports NRLF + SRLF are treated as 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 are attributed to the original depositor.
Discussion NRLF and SRLF holdings records (vs. suppressed campus records of RLF deposits) should be the authoritative record for reporting the circulating (non-restricted) collections housed in the two facilities. Campus suppressed records don’t reflect RLF-based deduplication over the years. Some unbarcoded collections are located at SRLF (and therefore not reportable through Alma Analytics). Depending on the size of these unbarcoded collections, they could continue to be counted through SRLF practices. These may largely be special collections and archival items, and so would be handled as part of special collections reporting. We’ll likely need to exclude the special collections and archives (restrictive collections) housed at RLFs from general reporting, so that it can be part of special collections specific reporting. Suggestion to amend option 2, (or propose 2b) so that NRLF and SRLF distinct reports are run for circulating collections only; then separate reports are run by original depositor for restricted collections (special collections and archives) or local counting is maintained (for consultation with HOSC/Special Collections).
If RLF holdings are reported by original depositor (and SP is included in campus reporting and not treated separately), some holdings will not be reflected in our reports, such as shared print for licensed content and those WEST holdings submitted by non-UC contributors. (Non-UC contributions to SP collections represent a small portion of our holdings). Historically, there has always been overlap between the Shared Print Annual Statistics (managed by the Shared Print program) and the UC Libraries / UCOP Annual Statistics (holdings reported in both). Campuses (onsite and at the RLFs) report shared print holdings as part of the Annual Statistics and for the SP Statistics. Functionally (through Alma Analytics), we are better able to report our data in several different way (we’re not as limited as we once were); but there remains a philosophical question around ownership and how UC should represent the collective collection (shared print, but also the broader circulating RLF collections). SRLF and NRLF can identify and report based on Shared Print status for all but the HathiTrust SP commitments housed in the RLFs. For shared print physically located at the campuses: Shared Print is seeking to use the Item Level Retention flag in Alma (“committed to retain”); with controlled vocab for reason. If an item needs to be replaced, the responsibility currently resides with original campus. Does that inform how we report? There’s functionality and then there’s our shared philosophical approach to what and how we report. There’s a reporting dissonance - where we report based on original owner, not access. Direction from CoUL and collections leaders is required, as it impacts what we report. There are philosophical questions around what it means to count and what we’re seeking to convey; then there are practical questions around the best way to implement it.
| NRLF and SRLF records (vs. suppressed campus records of RLF deposits) should be the authoritative record for their circulating (non-restricted) collections. Direction from CoUL and collections leaders is required, because it impacts what we report. There are philosophical questions around what it means to count and what we’re seeking to convey; then there are practical questions around the best way to implement it.
| |