| 3 | Update from HOSC - See email shared on AASA-PT listserv by Danielle (07/24/2023) | 5 min | HOSC have been asked to share the following by Aug. 02: Could each HOSC member email us with a list of the non-ILS special collections count(s) that their campus will submit in the fall? (E.g., manuscript units, pictorial items, etc.) Could each HOSC member also let us know, for those special collections resources with non-ILS counts, if they are partially represented in the ILS and how we should exclude them from Alma Analytics NZ reporting, to reduce double-counting (if possible)? OR, if there isn’t enough time to determine how to exclude these resources in NZ reporting this year, could each HOSC member confirm that we won’t worry about exclusions this year and will instead target exclusions for reporting next year.
| Â | Â |
| 4 | Prototype check-in - Review current prototype, potential edits and outstanding questions | 15-20 min | Microform Likely that several/all campuses will not want to use the Alma/ILS-based data point for microform/fiche. Microform collections will never be catalogued systemwide at the item level; it just isn’t a priority. Could use a factor/multiplier with the Alma data; but then it remains an estimate.
DN analysis of Total Vols reported in 21/22 and Total Holdings/Books for 22/23 For the former total, did it potentially include some suppressed volumes? We don’t want to contort Alma export to try to account for holdings that aren’t catalogued at the item level. Agreement: We should not count suppressed holdings. For some, when records are about to be deleted (though depending on the campus - not all campuses have this approach), those records are suppressed. Suppressed holdings could be applied just to deleted, if there is an identifier or location to denote the holding is withdrawn. (UCR: If technically possible not to filter suppressed for withdrawn just for UCR, that would be helpful - but that customization isn’t mandatory since it’s not a shared need).
eBook count For UCL/UCOP, this is a total holdings; in the past, some campuses have interpreted and reported titles. For Network Zone reporting, we are trying to report both holdings and title-level data. Some campuses, to varying degrees, have duplicated SCP shared collections (tier 1 and 2) in their local catalogue. In the reporting of electronic collections, holdings might represent false duplicates (between local and SCP versions of the same licensed content resources). UCB does this; UCI to a degree. Sometimes the duplication of holdings is needed for external collection analysis tools (so that Network-level collections are visible locally for analysis). We might need to look into this more. The extent to which licensed content is loaded into the NZ and/or each IZ.
Title-level counts for licensed content: DN determined why v. 6 wasn’t reporting title count - when the trial filter was removed, it worked. DN looked into removing last 4-digits of MMS ID; tested, and it doesn’t work (provides ID that isn’t unique to a title). Re-ran this report with trials included (full MMS ID); this provides title-level information just for IZ + separate title-level from NZ. So the dedup is within IZ and then within NZ (doesn’t de-dup across both). DN is working with Ex Libris to determine how to dedup across both IZ and NZ. They originally planned to propose a solution by September; but this has been delayed to next year. Should look into percentage overlap for each campus between tier 1/2 and local campus collections. Potentially could use Primo de-dup. Could take a random sampling approach to understand the level of duplication, for each campus, between their IZ and what they have available at the NZ. She will do this to understand the likely % of duplication between these levels for the campuses.
| Â | |