{"id":555,"date":"2012-08-28T16:50:48","date_gmt":"2012-08-28T20:50:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.net\/mscs\/?page_id=555"},"modified":"2014-07-30T15:17:45","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T19:17:45","slug":"summary-of-583-subcommittee-august-28-2012","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/progress\/summary-of-583-subcommittee-august-28-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary of 583 Subcommittee, August 28, 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recording Monographic Retention Decisions – Meeting Notes – August 28, 2012<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Attending: Sarah Campbell, Karl Fattig, Sharon Fitzgerald, Venice Bayrd, Sara Amato<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The main focus of this meeting was the use of 583 statements in item records to record retention decisions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Outcomes Overview:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Agreed on the standard language for 583 \u2018committed to retain\u2019 and \u2018condition reviewed\u2019 statements.\u00a0 There was some discussion as to whether these statements could be combined.\u00a0 Sara A. will talk to OCLC about this.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Also noted that 583s should be in each item record of multi volume sets.\u00a0\u00a0 Agreed that we will try 5 sample records and add \u2018committed to retain\u2019 and \u2018condition reviewed\u2019 in local catalogs and look at how data flows to MaineCat.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Discussed need for a Shared Print OCLC symbol.\u00a0 Since it was Sara\u2019s understanding that these items would not have separate lending rules, it was felt that an additional symbol was not needed.\u00a0 Again Sara will discuss this with OCLC to see if they have any other reasons for recommending a separate symbol.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Question for Project and Collections Teams:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Display – How important is public display, as opposed to staff access to the information?\u00a0 In general we thought that it was important as a showcase of the project, but there are display issues with III, which would require using external javascript to fix.\u00a0 Alternatively we could have 856 link somewhere.\u00a0 Is there a public service group to discuss this?\u00a0 Sara A. can show some examples, e.g.<\/p>\n

Mudlumps:\u00a0 http<\/a>:\/\/<\/a>phebe<\/a>.<\/a>bowdoin<\/a>.<\/a>edu<\/a>:2082\/<\/a>search<\/a>\/<\/a>X<\/a>?<\/a>mudlumps<\/a>&<\/a>searchscope<\/a>=1&<\/a>SORT<\/a>=<\/a>D<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Circulation of items – is it correct that these items will not circulate differently than other items?<\/p>\n

8\/30\/2012 – Answer from Deborah Rollins email:<\/p>\n

This is correct. Retention statements will be added to items whose status will usually remain the same (often that status will be circulating). I expect that when we look at entirely unique to OCLC items and add retention statements, we might change the status of some to non-circulating if we find them in the stacks, though.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If material held by more than one institution, will other institutions withdraw their copies?\u00a0 If other copies are not withdrawn, should \u2018condition reviewed\u2019 statements be added to those items (with no committed to retain statement.)<\/p>\n

8\/30\/2012 – Answer\u00a0 from Deborah Rollins email:<\/p>\n

Other institutions may withdraw their copies, or not, as they choose. I expect that “condition reviewed” statements will NOT be added to the items that are not agreed to be the retained copies of record. However, there is nothing to prevent an institution from adding this data on their own if they wish to.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If an institution decides to keep an item out of the scope of this project, are there any issues with them adding \u2018committed to retain\u2019 statements to their records? (We think not but wanted to ask.)<\/p>\n

8\/30\/2012 – Answer from Deborah Rollins email:<\/p>\n

No, they could add retention statements to items outside the scope of our project (after all, it’s just a MARC record field). BUT, I would hope we’d agree to complete all MSCS project retention statements and run related reports, gather stats, finalize agreed-upon protocols for the statements, etc., before any institution adds a bunch of other non-project-related retention statements, which could muddy the waters of what we’re doing for the grant.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Action Items:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Sara A. :<\/p>\n

-Continue exploring 583 display issues, send Karl the III open call #, contact Bob Duncan<\/p>\n

-Add 856 to item in Bowdoin catalog, send to Venice for inspection on MaineCat side.<\/p>\n

-Contact Contance Malpas (OCLC) and Lizanne Payne (WEST)to discuss potential to<\/p>\n

combine 583 statements and review decisions not to use shared print OCLC<\/p>\n

symbol.<\/p>\n

Venice:<\/p>\n

-Look at how 583s and 856s in the item transfer to MaineCat and explore display options.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Karl, Sharan, Sarah:<\/p>\n

-Add 583 statements to 5 sample records.\u00a0 Let Venice know which records.\u00a0 Continue to<\/p>\n

think about ideal display.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Next meeting tentatively to be held Sept 6th, 2012, 9 a.m., pending outcome of questions and progress.<\/p>\n

Next Steps<\/p>\n

– display issues<\/p>\n

– local and union catalogs<\/p>\n

– OCLC LHRs<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recording Monographic Retention Decisions – Meeting Notes – August 28, 2012   Attending: Sarah Campbell, Karl Fattig, Sharon Fitzgerald, Venice Bayrd, Sara Amato   The main…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-555","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=555"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/555\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":658,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/555\/revisions\/658"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.maineinfonet.org\/mscs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}