Minutes for October 29, 2007 Meeting

Stephanie Bartz, Ellen Calhoun, Nancy Hendrickson, Barry Lipinski (recorder), Andy Martinez, Rebecca Martinez, John Shepard, Christopher Sterback (chair), Charlotte Toke, Bob Warwick
Erika Gorder, Kevin Mulcahy, Mary Beth Weber

1. Review of Draft of Minutes of October 15, 2007 Meeting

Bob explained why Unicorn requires the existence of the item code UNKNOWN.

Charlotte reiterated that we will need to look at holding codes at the Acquisitions level. The group discussed whether the selector should be responsible for assigning the material its item code. Will a selector be able to tell which item code to use without seeing the item? Bob said that for approximately 95 per cent of the items the selector will not need to provide any input for the item type. Bob suggested that the selector make a decision for each item on whether it should circulate (Y/N) and what should be its home location.

Bob said that the goal of the group is not to change our policies, e.g., everything that goes to Art stacks still does not circulate. He discussed the difference between human policies applied at the desk and system policies.

Andy asked who will make the determination on what is holdable? Chris said we will by determining what circulates and what does not circulate. Bob said that users will get used to seeing the circulate codes (Y/N) before requesting items. Users still will see the pop-up box "Hold not Allowed", as they do now when placing a hold on an item that is not eligible for a hold.

Now when doing an inventory, Bob said, we may be able to correct an item type and make an item Y or N, i.e., circulates or does not circulate. For many of our units, Bob said, PER, STACKS, and REF represent the majority of item types that they own.

Rebecca pointed out that Dana's Goverment documents circulate when they are in PER. Based on this example, Stephanie said that we will need to add PERIODCL-Y to our list of item types.

Andy asked if we could require that a note be placed in the item record indicating who changed and item's circulation status. Chris, Bob, and Ellen said that they believed this would not be our decision but could be brought to the Holdings Group and the Technical Services Core Working Group (TSCWG) for discussion.

2. Review latest version of the draft list of item types and definitions

Chris pointed out that more changes had been made to the list based on decisions made at the October 15, 2007 meeting.

The task force went through the list and made several suggestions, including changes to the definitions of ATLAS, POSTER, BOOK (decided to remove the phrase "collection of wood and ivory tablets), SCORE (John pointed out that the definition was too specific and that he would draft a change), DISKETTE, and RESERVE.

Nancy pointed out that one of the benefits of a new item type list is that it will enable items to fit into what is needed in Academic Research Libraries (ARL) statistical categories. Nancy distributed to the task force copies of the ARL 2006-07 DRAFT Worksheet for "Other Library Materials" and Audio Visual Materials". It is in these two areas that different item types will be reported. Nancy emphasized that the task force's work will help with identifying and statistically reporting audio visual materials.

Chris followed Nancy's comments by offering to make a first attempt at mapping the draft item type codes to the ARL statistical categories. Nancy added she would also perform this task. Bob suggested that we can put ARL codes at the front of our definitions, making items easier to identify and report.

Nancy said that for accurate ARL reporting, we need to know what is actually ordered (purchased). Currently, this is noted in acquisitions records and Chris creates annual reports for Nancy that use this code to provide figures on the number and dollar amounts of new orders by campus and fund level 2. We will continue to rely on "material type" designations in the acquisitions orderline records for these reports until we have a reliable replacement. Nancy mentioned that a review of statistics collected and how we collect them would be conducted within the next year. Ellen said it is better that Systems record these statistics.

The task force recommended leaving REALIA on the wish list. Other item types currently on the wish list are: FLSHDRVE, GAME, INCUNBLA, PATENT, PHOTO, PICTURE, and POSTCARD.

Chris presented to the task force a handout with three different definitions of the item types BROADSIDE, LEAFLET, and PAMPHLET. After reviewing, the task force recommended the Society of American Archivists (SAA) definitions of LEAFLET and PAMPHLET be used. For BROADSIDE, it was decided that a definition combining the terms offered by the Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) and SAA definitions would be best.

Ellen pointed out that many times PAMPHLET will be used in a bibliographic record.

The task force said it will make a recommendation (but not include it in the definition of MISC), that if RUL acquires more than 5 of a particular kind of item currently identified as MISC, the libraries might want to give it its own material type (if requested).

3. Review which item types circulate/do not circulate

The group reviewed its working list and made the following recommendations:

Remove PALCI-N

4. Determine final tasks

Chris said that if the task force feels that its latest list is what it wants, it is time to write the task force report. He recommended that the task force report include: 1) a description of the task force's guiding principles; 2) an explanation of the task force's general approach to mapping; 3) a suggested date for making these changes; and 4) a commitment to providing information and training to staff.

Ellen said she thought a basic question should be asked and answered: When is the item type determined? Bob said he thought the best answer would be "at the earliest possible time." Bob suggested that the item type will be determined at a variety of times, e.g., a gift would be handled differently. Rebecca said that this question should be presented to TSCWG. Bob said that once the report is approved it should go to various groups such as the Collection Development Committee (CDC) and Public Services Council (PSC). Bob suggested that the task force may be asked to become an implementation group.

Chris said that he and Bob would work on the draft report. The goal for the next meeting will be to review the draft. The task force would like to have the report completed so that it can be presented to the Technical Services Council (TSC) in December.

5. Next Meeting

The next Item Type Task Force meeting will be held on Monday, November 26 at 1:30 p.m. in the TSB conference room.

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)