2024-03-18 10am AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Chair - @Chan Li

Notetaker - @Danielle Westbrook

Attendees

@Lisa Wong
@Chan Li
@Ellen Augustiniak (Unlicensed)
@John Riemer (Unlicensed)
@Sarah Sheets
@Michele Potter
@Amaladas, Denusha
@Susan Boone (Unlicensed)
@Anna Striker
@akshayagrawal
@Danielle Westbrook
@Daisy Nip (Unlicensed)

Regrets:

@Alison Lanius

	Item & Desired Outcome	Time & Facilitator	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item & Desired Outcome	Time & Facilitator	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	Assemble Note taker Record Meeting	5 All
2	ARL	40	Follow up from last week: For ARL, which libraries each campus report for? Main, Special, Law, Affiliated? How do we want to collect this data? How do campuses report the title count for “Digitized content from your collection that is accessible under current copyright law” ARL survey questions in relationship to the UCOP Stats Summary Q1. Titles held Q2. Volumes in Library Q4. E-books (included in Q2, Volumes Held) Q17. Initial circulations (excluding reserves) Discussion Michele created the following form/survey, for ARL, to determine how each campus typically reports their stats to ARL. When we developed the prototype for UCL/UCOP annual stats, we tried to edit our data requirements to be more in alignment with ARL data requirements. The UCL/UCOP stats do break some campuses down into components/affiliates for physical materials, where applicable (e.g., main, law, health sciences) DN needs to understand if/how each campus will need to report their ARL stats by categories (i.e., Main, special collections, law) – for special collections, if those are reported separately for ARL, Daisy will just need to back-track those holdings (done by location) from the General stats in the prototype. Please let her know (via the form - see action for ALL). For ACRL, UCI title counts: If a physical title has a holding in UCI Law and the UCI main library (which occurs frequently), Law does not report the title in their title-level stats (only the main library does). However for ARL, UCI law and main library both (individually - as separate entities) count that title in their physical material title-level stats (in other words - for title-level physical materials, UCI Law and UCI Main are reported as separate, distinct entities - they don’t dedup at the IZ level). This is a design consideration, for the next iteration of the prototype: Being able to report IZ components as separate entities and an institution. In other words - being able to report title level at the IZ level and at the component/entity level within the IZ. For ARL, reporting Law and Health Science (and others) as separate entities, in relation to their institution’s main library --- this allows for peer comparisons, across Law libraries, etc. Of note: When Law and HS libraries are cross compared, all of the campus' e-resources are counted in what is offered to those students & professors. In a summary output for ARL submissions, for each reporting entity - we can have the physical titles for the entity, e.g., UCI Law (not excluding duplicates with main campus); electronic titles from NZ; electronic titles from IZ. In providing all parts, each reporting institution can determine how to count/report their stats. This is potentially an issue just for UCI, UCLA and UCD (all with Law schools in SILS); for UCB, Law has their own ILS and so this isn’t an issue. In future, we could also investigate how health science libraries are represented in ARL stats (as part of main stats?). DN confirmed that under eR Portfolios, from the NZ, we can report the “holding library” for eResource acquisitions; Daisy has these values ARL is due at the end of April; for internal review, we ideally want to have stats available for early April.	Decision: For ARL, some affiliates within an IZ need to be counted as distinct/separate entities for physical holdings – e.g., for Law schools, maybe Health Sciences libraries, etc. While this is a use case impacting only a subset of the partners, our shared goal is to reduce workload systemwide - there is AASA-PT agreement that the prototype should be revised to support those institutions who need to be able to run their stats to reflect two reporting obligations: dedup physical materials at the IZ level and dedup physical materials at the affiliate/component level (such that if UCI Law and UCI Main both hold a physical copy of the same title, they both include that count in their stat for title-level physical materials).	ALL complete AASA-PT ARL survey (created by Michele), to confirm how you typically report your ARL stats. One set of stats, for your entire institution? Or are some affiliates/components reported distinctly from Main (e.g., Law, special collections, etc.)? @Daisy Nip (Unlicensed) will confirm and report back how duplicate physical titles are reported in the Prototype (for MMS ID, is it deduplicated at the IZ level, or are internal affiliates/locations applied before deduplication is run?); if we need changes for how Law library title-level physical stats are run – e.g., to not dedup UCI at the IZ level but instead to dedup physical titles for UCI Law and UCI Main as if they were separate campuses - Daisy will confirm how the Alma Analytics query needs to be changed (potentially, some Law data may need to be re-run for ARL; then changes made to Prototype in future). @John Riemer (Unlicensed) and @Alison Lanius to confirm how UCLA and UCD Law Libraries are reporting their stats for ARL. @Daisy Nip (Unlicensed) will create an ARL-output from the UCL/UCOP Annual Stats prototype and ACRL output (as affiliates/components are currently reported, and including non-NZ/self-reported stats); she’ll aim to circulate this ARL output on Friday for review at Monday’s AASA-PT.
3	IPEDS AL Component Removal	10	The proposal and comments --- Ran out of time; hold for next meeting.
4	Wrap up: Review actions and decisions	5
5	Capture important topics for future discussion