G roup A feedback

1. Group A feedback Copac Collection Management Tools Project Workshop on Retention and Preservation, March 12th 2012

2. 1. Initial thoughts • Would identifying uniques prevent ILL? – i.e. No willingness to lend as it is so unique • Task may not be feasible on an item-by-item basis • Need agreed standards BUT is difficult to do the necessary work retrospectively • Can be done on unique collections but not across the entire collection • Willingness to make available to other institutions to digitise – needs collective agreement

3. Initial thoughts • Including info in records: Could be done across collections, but item-by-item would be ad hoc & then flagged. • Could batch add preservation status across collections. • Common semantics. • Level of confidence in knowing physical state of “last copies”.

4. Initial thoughts • “8 copies”; UKRR “3” • UK register of digital masters • Disciplinary views on digital resources & relative importance of print collections • Just because something is old does not mean that it is worth saving • Support for digitisation/digital preservation

5. Initial thoughts • Also issues of digital preservation & cost (life cycle, byte preservation) • Is copac data granular enough to identify item differences? • Item level information • What preservation has been done locally? (Not on list). Where to keep this info (e.g. intention to preserve)

6. 2. Priorities • 1. Intention to retain long-term • 2. Condition • 3. ILL status • 3. Digitisation • 5. Common semantics

7. 2. • Can copac be mined already – based on current data? • Recording information within metadata • Agreement where the data needs to be recorded (which type of record, where in record) needed. • REF, research excellence, print collection being the only unique collection • Identifying areas of need & appending this against records

8. 3. Holdings • 8 copies/institutions – where they are located – geography influences decisions (e.g. for types of users who do not have rights to ILL service) • Groups/consortia/specialsims., esp with regional funding (e.g. regional governments) • National & regional agreements about no. of copies to retain • Uncatalogued materials – pre-1800. But these are not the materials that need the most attention in terms of space • Define terminology in advance for pre-1800 materials

9. 4. Collection strengths • Choosing to not collect: To some extent already making these decisons - relation to current teaching & research • Mapping at collection level where the strengths are for subjects/disciplines. • Institutional problems/politics of disposal of stock. • How do you advertise the wish to get rid of collections to other libraries? Benefits of “small adds” – i.e looking for a good home. • Need strategic view. • Transfer is low down in list of priorities

10. 5. Copac tools • What is not (currently) in copac. But start from what we already have. • Time-limited flag against materials for keeping and/or disposing/passing to another institution. • Use copac to mark items that there is an intention to dispose of something – then can be used by other institutions. • Designation scheme – can feed into this. Unique & special collections.