For option 1, might make sense for campuses to delete their OCLC holdings when they deposit.
SLF-S/UCLA were planning a workflow where SLF-S would run a quarterly report of everything UCLA deposited that was no longer held in a campus library to delete OCLC holdings.
Currently, SLF-S gets ILL requests through the ZAS symbol and UCLA gets ILL requests through the CLU symbol; UCLA will sometimes get requests for SLF-S, those are sent along.
UCLA is prepared to implement option 1 at any time. Would involve deleting 2.4M CLU holdings in OCLC.
SLF-N is not set up to do direct invoicing or international lending. Currently, when they get requests they can’t fill, they can pass it on to CUY. (About 1000 items loaned by Berkeley in the last year fit those categories, not all of which would be affected by this situation) (Changes to these policies are out of scope but might be considered in the future)
From the borrowing perspective--sometimes the request goes to UCLA when UCLA doesn’t really have it because it’s been deposited at SLF-S, so it can cause delays and extra work.
Changing to Tipasa shouldn’t really impact the current setup for ZAP and CUY; the requests are still being sent to and filled out based on policies/lender strings (They use a 3rd party system, not VDX).
At SLF-N, they use a different OCLC record from the depositing library about 2% of the time; keeping that in sync (option 2) would be really difficult.
SLF-S also has some cases where they won’t lend (fewer than 15 a year) and UCLA will take care of that.
Tipasa goes live on July 1.
Is harmonization necessary? Not sure. ILL policies are different across the campuses. What is UC’s feeling about lending persistent copies to non-UCs?
Fist of five for not harmonizing on this decision - mostly fours, a few fives, at least one three.