1. Update on Systems batch withdrawals from IRIS - Due to the increasing backlog of items in the queue, Systems will longer wait for RLIN to resume our batchloads and will resume processing withdrawals out of Unicorn either late this month or early November. Systems will create the necessary backup files should RLIN determine that any of the files already ftp'ed are corrupt.
Chris distributed a spreadsheet summarizing the status of outstanding batch withdrawals.
|Library||Project/Group||Type/Month||Number of Items||Status|
|ALL||GEACLOST||LONGOVD||8131||pending removal from Unicorn|
|ALL||RLINDISCARD||MAR05||839||pending removal from Unicorn|
|ALL||BATCHWITH||MAR05||793||pending removal from Unicorn|
2. Report on Inventory testbeds - the team reviewed the current state of the inventory testbeds.
a. Newark - Ann Watkins is the contact and is using a laptop with an attached barcode scanner. So far Newark has inventoried 1397 items on 37 shelves. Of these, 6 had barcodes but were not in Unicorn, 168 items had no barcode, 4 were inventoried but charged out, and 10 were damaged and needed repair. Also, 142 items have Unicorn records but were not inventoried.
For the items not inventoried, Ann is making a thorough check of all possible temporary locations to insure none were inadvertently missed. Once done, any items still not inventoried will be batch charged to MISSING.
Items with no barcode and items with a barcode but no Unicorn record were pulled and stored in Ann's office. Ann asked how she should proceed with these. ISAWG responded that these items should be put back on the shelves but marked in some way so that they can be pulled and reviewed for appropriate action at a later date. Gracemary and Chris volunteered to visit Newark in early November to review the uncataloged material and begin to determine a course of action.
b. New Brunswick - Andy Martinez is the contact and is preparing for testbeds in Art, Chemistry, and Kilmer using the PocketCirc device. In preparation for the test, Andy produced a report showing an item count at each branch, the number of items that would need to be inventoried at a 1%, 2%, and 3% sampling rate, and the length of time each sample would take. He then asked ISAWG for their recommendation on the size of the sample and the best way to randomize the shelf numbers that will be inventoried. ISAWG believes a 1% sample should be sufficient to start. Also, there are a number of websites that generate random numbers and Chris will select one that meets the needs of this project.
3. Review Preservation Codes - one of the components planned for RUL's inventory process is to record the condition of items needing some level of preservation. Specifically, if any item is not in good condition and needs repair or should be replaced, a code will be stored in the Unicorn item record to denote the level of repair needed. ISAWG reviewed the codes drafted by Ian Bogus. The codes were:
Fair - item is showing some signs of wear including minor tearing of cover and spine
Bad - item cannot sit on the shelf in its current condition
Irreparable - item is beyond repair or rebinding and must be replaced.
After a good discussion about definition, workflow, and implementation ISAWG recommends only using "Bad" and "Irreparable". We believe three levels might be too granular and that those performing an inventory would inspect the item as it relates to its ability to circulate.
4. Removal of RLIN 950's - Chris asked the group whether the batch withdrawal process should accommodate removing individual RLIN 950's when a specific library's item is being removed (based on a question from Teri McNally at Robeson.) Some ISAWG members recall that removing the 950's was raised a number of years ago and that it was decided to keep them because some of the 950's contain useful information in the subfield n (i.e. the note field) that is not recorded anywhere else. Chris will ask Mary Beth Weber and Bob Warwick about this and report back to the group. In the meantime, ISAWG decided that making any decisions about retention or removal of 950's would be approached as a one-time project and not added to the batch withdrawal process.
5. Chris asked about our draft procedures and where these should go once out of draft mode since the ISAWG presence under Staff Resources does not have an appropriate place to store policies, procedures, training docs, etc. ISAWG members did not have a specific answer but it is likely these would be placed under one of the top-level categories with this structure (i.e. Access Services, Technical Services, or Systems.)
6. Chris reported that he was contacted by one of the branch libraries for a reports time so that they could schedule an "inventory report". Chris further questioned the staff member on this as the branches should no longer be designing their own inventory methods and workflow but should work with ISAWG. They responded that, even though they called it inventory, they were really asking for a printout to facilitate shelf-reading by students and that they are not "inventorying" their collection.
7. Chris reported that he sent in a proposal to present a session on RUL's inventory process for the upcoming annual SIRSI conference and, if accepted, would ISAWG team members help him with the content. ISAWG team members agreed. Subsequent to this meeting Chris learned that his proposal was accepted.
8. Since we ran out of time, two topics were tabled until the next meeting. The two topics were 1) Annex recon proposal and 2) Alexander Card Catalog sampling.
9. The next ISAWG meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in the TSB conference room.