2023-05-15 10 am AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Record

Review previous notes and tasks

5m - Ellen

For specific filters and query parameters in Campus customizations , AASAPT reps should feel free to take the time to consult and work this out now - we can iterate after July. But investing the time now will hopefully mean we have usable NZ reports for 22/23 reporting that need little or no additional tinkering on NZ reports.

Decision: We do need a deadline for finalizing, with specificity, the parameters for July 1 reports for FY2022-2023 reports of UC Library statistics. This is separate from the May deadline for our SILS-LG report, which can stay more general.

RLF

10m @Susan Boone

Statistics: RLF holdings

Discussion

• 2b doesn’t fully account for shared print.

• Why are we reporting RLF holdings? For schedule D, we are reporting for insurance purposes. For schedule A (physical collections) - it’s to account for the 15 M vols and vol equivalents stored at the RLFs; would ideally like to reflect all shared print.

• Hybrid approach - represents that we can report this data in many ways.

• Shared print campuses and RLFs, with SP print in place, they’re coming up with a harmonized approach to reporting shared print (for reporting in Alma Analytics)

• What is AASAPT’s recommendation? Do we have one recommendation?

  • Those that prefer option 2b note that they locally do not keep records for items sent to the RLFs - they are viewed as the persistent, collective collections.

  • Shared reflection that status quo (option 3) is fine. For ARL reporting, some campuses noted a preference for 3. Others, based on need to continue to report campus deposits in RLFs to local constituents, want option 3.

Decision: We will advance options 2b and 3 (re-naming) as two recommended approaches for SILS-LG (and/or higher up) to decide upon; report will reflect the interests/considerations that AASA-PT discussed. The report can also note the broader questions to consider, regarding collective collection, shared print and RLF holdings, and that we ultimately can pursue many different reporting paths (not just the two options, though those are the two that should be considered for 22/23 reporting).

DDA - What are the concerns? Do we need to thoroughly review and document them?

10m @John Riemer

• For UC, what do we want to track / count? Proposal right now is to count eDDA in a separate column, so that we have non-eDDA totals (e.g., owned/licensed eBooks) and eDDA totals; folks can then report both or just one.

• We can report eDDA at the collection level. For some campuses (but not all) we also have the data via Alma Analytics to distinguish purchased eDDA (and so those holdings can just be counted as owned eBooks) and eDDA candidates – the discoverable but not yet owned eBooks; for other campuses, we don’t have the metadata available in Alma Analytics, and so we can just report all eDDA (both owned and candidates); potential recommendation there, to suggest clean up so that eDDA purchases and eDDA candidates can be distinguished, where possible.

Decision: So long as it’s technically feasible (and we think it is), we will report eDDA holdings as a separate total from the owned and licensed electronic holdings. This allows each campus to determine whether they want to exclude them or include them in their reporting.

Check in on campus forms & other query filters needed in NZ

20m round-robin

Campus customizations

• UCB: Work still underway

• UCD: Done course reserves; still working on DDA; local consultation with Daisy and local experts on SC&A

• UCI: Meeting this week with local experts - underway.

• UCLA: Affiliates - defining list - done that; course reserves still underway; and dda, waiting for discussion today

• UCM: No affiliates (Done!); course reserves done; DDA - fine if separated, as plan to report; SC& and withdrawn underway

• UCR: Course reserves (location - reserves) is done; SC&A is done; DDA - can do under e-Inventory but titles need more mapping, to filter; DN might still need some info, but info on all have been shraed

• UCSF: Work underway; defining affiliates under way; course reserves should be by location; DDA is a mess; SC&A is by location or branch - should be straightforward).

• UCSC: Need to double check on affiliates; SC&A completed; DDA, need to double check.

Wrap up - Review actions and decisions

5m - Danielle

Parking Lot - Capture important topics for future discussion

• Withdrawn and deleted. Alma Analytics keeps deleted item records. For electronic content, many records get deleted regularly so that they can be re-done. Can we have guidance for how to notate withdrawn items, so that we can report withdrawn items and not just all deleted records?

  • Cloud app - Item Updater with Excel (use excel sheet with barcodes, batch add new column with new notes; same column headers as API, but no key needed). FYI, if Cloud Apps are enabled, this is open to all (across roles).

• DDA consultation? There is a systemwide UC eBooks Strategies Team. (AASAP Team member @Alison Lanius is also a member of the eBooks Strategies Team) Do we want to chat with them? Or is there a broader recommendation, to ask maybe that they consider/recommend how the system might approach DDA reporting (if different from the approach recommended by AASAPT)?