Present: Allison Powers, Leila Smith, Chew Chiat Naun
How are we identifying the 4M(?) volumes we are committing to retain? (Jim Hodges running analysis - Leila will check with him)
Are we just talking about ReCAP? What about HT, Ivy Plus, Harvard (internal, between libraries; possibly related to Project Muse; local field defined, but not sure if its use has continued)
How do we know what internal Harvard retention decisions are, if not recorded in a local field?
Yale criteria:
mfhd location code is 'lsf' exactly [Yale code]
008/07-10 (date1) is equal to or greater than 1900, with non-digits normalized to 9 [presumably bib]
HathiTrust overlap is greater than 5 [don’t know what this is]
Ivy Plus overlap is less than 8 [don’t know what this is]
LDR/06-07 (bib format) is 'am' [bib]
How definitive are the reports?
Is ReCAP using the OCLC Shared Print Management service?
Not discussed so far, according to Mark Wilson (Columbia)
What do we do about organization symbols in $5?
Is ReCAP following the 583 action note format proposed for Columbia/Cornell/Harvard?
Commitments made under multiple agreements - repeat field or subfield?
Maintaining would be easier if we repeated fields.
Could be serials or anything else
Will it always be the same holdings?
Are we doing this before we attempt data sync?
Also relationship to HD deaccessioning (mainly involves HCL, and they are withdrawals; target of 40K items)
(Further question) Are we coding holdings retention byte (008/12)?
Need a process for updating records regardless of what happens with OCLC shared print management
How do we know about retention decisions for new acquisitions?
Including new issues of serials
Batch updates probably managed by API; need to find out capabilities; Allison will check with Ex Libris
Process for determining/updating retention commitments needs to come first in workflow
Need policy specifying what note should say
Allison has seen some tickets that suggest there is internal Harvard use of this note
AP will run a report of 583 notes (as of June 8)
We are being asked to produce recommendation so LTS can establish a timeline. Communication not part of our charge.
Action items:
Who does scripting etc? Sharon? Allison will follow up on process for adding, removing, updating holdings data in batch in LTS. Questions:
Technical limitations on adding, maintaining holdings 583 as a repeatable field?
Limits on number of API calls?
Holdings batch update also needed by Data Sync to add, maintain 079 fields in holdings
Leila checking with Jim Hodgson: scope of reports
Naun to check with ReCAP about content of 583 notes
From Mark Wilson (ReCAP/Columbia): There has not been any addition of retention statements to records that are specific to ReCAP. The items designated as "Shared" are understood to be retained indefinitely. For monographs that are designated as "Open", partners are able to de-accession and withdraw at their discretion (not so true of serials, which is more complicated). I am (privately) wondering whether (or how) HT Phase II Shared Print retention will overlap into ReCAP Open materials.
Retention notes for other agreements are probably well worth applying to materials in the "Open" collection, those would be coded as per the format specified by the agreement.
The OCLC shared print management service has not featured widely in discussions I have been party to, so my inclination is to answer your second question with a "no".
These all are and will be important questions, I believe they have not had the space to elbow their way to the spotlight yet.
Questions for Scott:
Prospective retention notes - how will those be handled? How often will criteria be refreshed, if at all?
SW: While important to keep this in mind, the main focus for the present is to update those legacy records for which Harvard has made a retention commitment for the ReCAP Shared Collection. An ongoing program to add prospective notes would be aligned with collaborative collection building.
SW: Over the longer term, we also need to consider a protocol that identifies records for which we have made the retention commitment, but for which we discover the items are lost or missing in order that we might replace them or update the records/send a report to partners to indicate the item is no longer being retained.
Is the current scope only for ReCAP retention, or should we include retention commitments for internal Harvard holdings (Div vs Wid, for example), Ivy Plus, Hathi?
SW: Current focus is on updating local records with ReCAP retention statements as there is a local need to identify titles for which Harvard has made a commitment to the Shared Collection
SW: No other ReCAP partner has yet added Shared Collection notes to their local records
Are there external deadlines for adding these notes? (E.g. ReCAP agreements/system functionality)
SW: No. The deadline is internal. The expectation is that this work will be completed in the near future to support other Harvard Library initiatives related to weeding the HD.
Hope was to get this done within 4-6 weeks.