Chris asked the group for a good time for regular bimonthly meetings. ISAWG members agreed to 3rd Thursday, very other month, from 1:30 to 3:00 in the TSB conference room beginning January 20. ISAWG will resume rotating the taking of minutes and will disseminate the meeting minutes to RUL_EVERYONE.
Team members discussed ISAWG's role as it relates to TSCWG. ISAWG will play an advisory role as it helps TSCWG meet its goals in 1) developing a serials inventory process, 2) testing an inventory procedure for monographs and 3) improving the effectiveness and efficiency of distributed technical services functions. Chris also raised the issue of the outstanding goals left for ISAWG. Specifically ISAWG needs to codify procedures but, with only four members on the group, has limited resources to perform this task. Gracemary suggested that the procedures should be developed by and come from the units where the work is being done and, in fact, this is how many of the draft procedures were already developed. Since projects like weeding, batch withdrawals, and inventory are already being performed by TSCWG members, TSCWG seems like a good place to start.
Also, as new technologies are identified or new projects are assigned to ISAWG the members of TSCWG could be permanent testbed partners and report on what worked and what didn't work, draw up procedures, etc.
Ruth reported that DBM received a stack of printouts of Kilmer CAREER/CARREF items for withdrawal from IRIS, RLIN, and OCLC and that this resulted in a review of the withdrawal procedures by DBM staff. DBM staff reviewed the process but there was a list of outstanding questions that Ruth brought to the meeting. The questions and ISAWG's responses are listed below.
A. What are the units doing about routine withdraws? Can this be automated?
Some units are editing the home/current location of item records to WITHDRAWN, others are charging to specific patron records related to the project (i.e. LSMWEED). Staff members then notify Chris that these items are ready to be batch removed but, as stated above, the method used to mark them as withdrawn is not consistent and results in Systems writing scripts unique to each project.
Ruth suggested that Systems create a Batch Withdrawal patron. Items charged to this patron would be shadowed and display a non-holdable location of WITHDRAWN. Staff members would charge items to this patron record after they have been checked for last copy. Systems/Chris would then batch withdraw the items on a schedule as yet to be determined (weekly, monthly, quarterly). As these projects become routine, it might be worthwhile to create a calendar, similar to the Access Services & Systems calendar, where batch processes could be run on a set schedule. TSCWG might be a good group to work with to create and publicize it
To that end, Chris will create a patron record for charging items to be withdrawn. Notification and use of this patron will be disseminated through TSCWG.
B. Currently the "withdrawn" status has two meanings--a temporary status for items that have been withdrawn from one library and offered to another, and a permanent status for items that are truly to be withdrawn, e.g. long missing items. Does this create a problem?
Yes it does, and ISAWG should work with TSCWG and DBM to make this process consistent. ISAWG recommends that separate patron records are created and used for items that will be processed differently.
C. What authority has been given to the units to delete items, merge items, change status to withdrawn, etc?
Most staff members have the ability to edit and delete items in Unicorn. Authority for these commands comes from the individual's supervisor.
D. Can all withdrawals be automated?
Yes they could as long as Systems is assured that the "last copy" procedures have been performed before the items are batch removed.
E. What is the policy about withdrawing records with attached order records, serials holdings, bills, etc?
For order records we need to check with Nancy Hendrickson and for bills we need to check with Judy Gardner. If the item has serial holdings these can be removed.
F. What utility updating, if any, is required when we merge IRIS records?
For automated batch withdrawals, Systems' batch withdrawal scripts accommodate the updating of RLIN and OCLC based on appropriate selection criteria from the bib record such as whether the bib record has a date cataloged and/or the bib record is one of our duplicate or unresolved OCLC records. For manual withdrawals DBM, in consultation with Bob Warwick, has instituted procedures for manual deletes.
G. Can we get everybody on the same train?
That is the goal of ISAWG and hopefully TSCWG.
Chris reported that there have been a number of batch withdrawals run by Systems but that with each group there is still a residue that have a "date cataloged" but no OCLC ID. This means these records may still be part of the unresolved OCLC reclamation records. Could we institute a procedure that removes these from the unresolved records list? In other words, why should OCLC set holdings on these titles if our next step is to delete their holdings. Chris will check with Bob about the ability to remove records out of the unresolved records group. (Subsequent to this meeting, Chris raised this issue with Bob. Bob responded that he needs to check with OCLC that they have finished attempting to load the remaining unresolved records.)
Chris inquired whether he was supposed to take action on these via the messages sent to RUL_HOLDINGS and RUL_SERIALS list. Gracemary responded that someone would still contact Systems to initiate the batching of such removals. For the example above, Bob Warwick was contacted to batch remove the items from the Douglass Subcollections and then the location from Unicorn.
Chris reported that staff members requested various batch level/global edit modifications but that everyone wanted something different in their output reports. Could Systems and ISAWG institute some standardization for similar tasks and disseminate this information through TSCWG? ISAWG team members do not see a problem with this and believe that requesters are amenable to making this process easier.
- Ruth reported that, in DBM, there are set procedures and a matching algorithm to identify duplicate records and that it might help those working on the weeding projects managed by Collection Services to review these procedures. Ruth will email these to Gracemary for review and dissemination.
(Subsequently, Gracemary and Ruth exchanged notes about procedures. Since the CS staff is mainly involved in merging brief, i.e. cat date NEVER, records to full records, there are no holdings issues to resolve. We also hope that the resolution of the duplicate OCLC numbers will make future weeding projects easier.)
Chris reported that, in Grace's presentation regarding Director's Station, she identified this product as a possible solution to track transient collections. When Director's Station is up and running Chris will work on this one.
The next ISAWG meeting will be held on January 20, 2004 at 1:30 in the TSB conference room.