Minutes for meeting January 8, 2003

Grace Agnew, Iliana Bernal, Paul Cabelli (recorder), Andrea Lakios, Elizabeth Leister, Jean Madden, Teri McNally, Kayla Reichert, Christopher Sterback, Gracemary Smulewitz


  1. MARC holdings records discussion.
  2. Invoice fund-code processing discussion.
  3. Review of cancellation/ceased procedures.
  4. Douglass Rationalization Project (DRP) update (Gracemary reporting).

1. MARC holdings records discussion

On the recommendation of IPAC, a temporary change was made to Iris. “Current holdings” is now displayed as just “holdings”. It is expected that IPAC will be reviewing patron responses to this change.

It was agreed that systems would create a report of all open 930s for the purpose of converting them into 866s. Kayla, Iliana, and Teri will receive the 930 reports from Christopher. Work will not begin on the conversion project until the Holdings Group reviews and approves updated 852/866 formatting standards.

Grace Agnew suggested that a group begin to investigate the possibility of having serial records link with related monographic series records thru use of the 856 tag. This group would consist of Christopher, Elizabeth, Paul, and Gracemary.

A discussion ensued about how to display MARCs for titles with holdings at two or more different call#s but for the same sublocation in the same library. It was decided that a single MARC would be created and that only a single “holdings” line would be created for each call#. The full example will be added to the revised 852 Format document.

The word “current” can be used in three different places in a MARC holdings record. In order to alleviate some of this confusion, Kayla made a suggestion to replace “current” (when used with the PER ublocation in the 852 tag) with either “reading room” or “loose”. There was no concensus by the group on whether to replace this word or not.

“Stack collection does not circulate” (as an 852 |z note) was suggested as an appropriate way to describe an exception to a normally circulating collection. Other notes that need standardization include: “with gaps”; “v.9 onwards catalogued separately”; “sporadic volumes catalogued analytically”. Grace suggested we use Keyboard Express for creating Macros for standardizing 852 notes.

All members were asked to review update #2 of the 852 Format document and come up with more examples of unusual situations, with recommendations for standard treatment. In the past, we have been following 930 local holdings patterns. We should be considering new ways of displaying notes. We should also be constantly referring back to Webcat in order to see how the public views the changes we make in our holdings.

2. Invoice fund-code processing discussion

The proper sequencing for processing invoices is being investigated and standardized.. To find available money to pay over-encumbered invoices is very time consuming. Christopher asked to be informed about “falsely encumbered” titles, where nothing has been received for 5 years or more.

A discussion ensued about how order records become detached from bibliographic records. While individuals may still be inadvertently detaching order records, it was also suggested that there might be a system bug that is creating this problem. Further investigation is needed.

While the budget office/acquisitions dept. coordination has improved, Gracemary suggested that a future meeting of the Holdings Group should discuss definitions of terminology, and ways of improving invoice processing. It was suggested that Peggy Gerenza and Nancy Hendrickson be invited to the meeting.

3. Review of cancellation/ceased procedures

A brief discussion ensued over cancellation and ceased procedures at NBL, Camden, and Newark. Gracemary would like both Camden and Newark to e-mail their current concellation procedures to her for use in a future Holdings Group discussion.

It was recommended that cancellations should be processed in the following sequence: vendor notification, then order record cancellation, then control record modification. Also, it would be useful to use job titles in place of personal names within the text of our generalized cancellation procedures. Grace suggested that we eliminate extraneous information from Iris, eliminate unnecessary steps, eliminate redundancy, and try to avoid having the same person review the material more than once.

4. Douglass Rationalization Project (DRP) update (Gracemary reporting)

The status and procedures involved in the DRP were briefly reviewed.

These included: creation of Sirsi lists containing online items in specific call# ranges for selector review (i.e. retain, transfer, or withdraw); creation of 4 Excel lists to help facilitate the process; Douglass-only withdrawal items being offered to Camden and Newark; and last copies being searched online and in the Alex card catalog (for possible duplicates) before being shipped over to the Annex for permanent retention. Grace mentioned that the last copy policy is RUL-wide, and not just NBL-wide.

The issue of space availability for accomodating volumes sent to unit libraries was brought up. Both Camden and Newark did not have any problem in absorbing the selections requested. Some units in NBL did have space limitation problems. It was recommended that authorization be received from each appropriate unit prior to any shipment being sent out.

Once the DRP is completed, a review and analysis will be undertaken to determine which procedures worked better than others. The goal is for a generalized rationalization process to be formulated which can be used for all future rationalization projects.

Next meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 5, 10:00 a.m. TSB Conference Room

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

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