Erika recommended revising the definition for the "MANSCRPT" item type, based on feedback from Al King (SC/UA Cataloger). Al recommended changing the purely singular definition to include the plural collections that manuscripts sometimes entail. The revised definition will be added to the Draft List of Item Types.
John discussed the definition for the "SCORE" item type, to make sure that it included works that do not have staves. The revised definition will be added to the Draft List of Item Types.
The group recommended moving the "CATALOG" item type to the wish list.
The draft item types "ILL", "PALCI", "UNKNOWN", and "RESERVE" will be justified for use in the final report.
Chris discussed the presentation of the Item Type Task Force recommendations to Technical Services Council. Overall the feedback on the recommendations was positive and the group was acknowledged for the volume of work accomplished.
Several issues were raised at the meeting, mainly the need to describe the work done in a larger "Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records" context. This "FRBRized" context also needs to be included in the final report from the group.
TSC looked through the draft of item types and approved the majority of them. Several item types were questioned, including the use of "COOKBK", "THESIS", "THESISRU", "DSSRTN", and "DSSRTNRU". TSC members felt that all three types could be consolidated into the "BOOK" item type, which follows "FRBR" guidelines. Any item types that the task force feels are necessary but do not follow the "FRBR" guidelines will need to be justified in the final report.
After discussion, the task force recommended removing "COOKBK", "THESIS", and "DSSRTN" from our draft of item types since they can be folded into the single "BOOK" item type.
Justification for "DSSRTNRU" and "THESISRU" will be provided in the final report, as the group felt that these items are closely connected to the University but are not published (reproduction of a typescript). Also, since they are frequently requested materials that are unique to RU, there are public service implications for making these two item types easily identifiable. That distinction should be preserved and highlighted with a specific item type.
The group discussed "FRBR" and its impact on the draft list of item types and the final report. This top down division of a bibliographic record was discussed and how looking at a record with the "FRBR" guidelines will divide that record into work, expression, manifestation, and item.
To help illustrate the "FRBR" concept, Bob used "Huck Finn" as an example of a bib record following the guidelines. Questions arose as to whether item types should be kept general (i.e. consolidate "FILMLOOP" and "FILMSTRP" into "FILM") or should be specific (i.e. keep "MICROCRD", "MICROFCH", etc instead of one "MICROFLM" type), how our draft of item types would map into a "FRBR" model of bib records, and the use of our draft item types to collect ARL statistics.
After a long discussion, it was decided that the majority of our draft item types would fit in a "FRBR" model, those that don't will be removed (i.e. "COOKBK", "THESIS") or will be justified in the final report for use (i.e. "THESISRU", "ILL"). The final report will be revised to include "FRBR" as a guiding model and guiding principle # 5 from the draft report will be removed (discussed using item types to highlight specific collections at RUL).
The report will be revised and sent back to TSC. Once approved, LIS will be responsible for implementation. An implementation period during Summer/2008 has been approved.
No further meetings are scheduled at this time.