Gracemary tabled the discussion of the cancellation and cessation process for another time. She wanted to discuss a very important issue: the standardization of holdings representation among the various libraries. She was concernedthat the public's ability to understand our holdings statements should be enhanced. Consequently, we focused on the 852 statement in the Marc holdings. She gave an introduction regarding the past record keeping of the various libraries being very idiosyncratic; she pointed out that previously that was not such a problem because no one else had entry into our individual kardex records. However, because the holdings of each library are listed on the bibliographic record and that there is internet access, it is important to have standardization and regularity so that the public on the individual campuses and students involved in distance learning will not be confused regarding our holdings and the location of those holdings.
We are already using Marc holdings and hook to holdings methods. Sirsi restricts us in the interpretation of how serials should be presented.
We have to decide What should Rutgers use as our definitive pattern, how we want our holdings to be represented, for example, how should indices be entered. We are moving from a concept of check-in to a form of catalog mode for serials. We must hone our skills, Gracemary encouraged the group, and We must work collaboratively.
Gracemary introduced a new project that Newark and Camden would be joining. The other Rutgers Libraries are involved in a project to review and revise check in records with the goal of standardizing our records. One day a month, that day’s check in records would be printed and collected, someone at each of the check in libraries would then review not only their own records but also any other library’s check - in records for the same title and then inform the other libraries of any work needing revision. At this point, no firm dates were set; the particulars would be arranged at a subsequent time. Linda Turzynski thought there was a need for Special Collections to be included in the project. There was a discussion; it was determined that at this point, Special Collections presented certain elements that prevented it from inclusion.
Two examples of journals with problematic holdings were announced: Nature and Science. The group was asked to review their holdings representation and to come prepared for the next meeting with comments.
Once guidelines/procedures have been determined they will be posted on the Staff Resources page under Serials, a Standard. Elizabeth suggested that a date be added to the guidelines. Everyone agreed that Elizabeth’s suggestion was a useful one.
Gracemary stated that the 852 field had great flexibility in Marc holdings. This is the field that reflects both where material is currently shelved and what are retention practice is. We must agree on a standard. She then added that with the fields 853 and 863, there is no flexibility. These fields represent a problem. For example, should a journal with pagination shown be included in the 853?
The delimiter z directs the public to the location where a journal is maintained. There is so much flexibility in this area, that we must be careful, Gracemary cautioned.
Gracemary asked whether IPAC would have to sign off on this group’s guidelines; the answer was in the affirmative. Ellen would take the guidelines to the IPAC meeting scheduled for 2/19/03.
Regarding examples #4 and 5, Gracemary suggested the terminology Current 3 issues retained. Andrea suggested that the students might not understand the word retained. Instead of retained the group suggested kept or keep.
When it was suggested that we change current to unbound, Fatima objected. She stated that we had been using this term for quite a while without a problem; why change now. A discussion of language ensued.
Elizabeth suggested that we keep to Anglo Saxon language, meaning we keep the terminology as simple as possible.
Gracemary stated that the less change the more consistent we’d be in maintaining our records.
Gracemary suggested that bound must be distinguished from unbound, meaning that the terms used must clearly signify that the materials are housed in two different areas. This caused discussion because the libraries have different layouts and designations for their periodicals related areas. Terry questioned whether different designations were actually needed and suggested that we leave well enough alone. Gracemary pointed out that we were getting a sense of the problem. To Terry’s suggestion of Current periodicals, Gracemary countered with Bound periodicals. More suggestions were made and debated. When Terry offered Current periodicals and Unbound periodicals, Gracemary agreed.
Since no concrete guidelines were developed, it was decided to let IPAC decide.
(Terry had another obligation and had to leave.)
Gracemary suggested we continue another 15 minutes in discussion and then adjure the meeting. Gracemary reminded the group to review the problems with Nature, Science and to consider the placement of certain terms and the selection of those terms to represent locations for the next meeting.
Before leaving, Gracemary informed the group that for all the libraries, the number of current controls was 10, 812 and that the number of remaining current controls to be created was 3, 890. She suggested that the number needing to be created might include old unreceived titles. Gracemary also suggested that we consider the problem of quality control, how to handle 853s, newspapers and government documents.
At her library, people wanted to know, Linda asked, if we needed to, could we use Marc holdings to indicate different titles that had replaced cancelled titles but that offered the same service. She offered the example of having cancelled Dissertation Abstracts but continuing to subscribe to International Abstracts. Gracemary thought that was a can of worms and suggested that the information should go in the bibliographic record; and that we must talk again about that.
Next meeting: 2/13/03 at 9:30 a.m.