1 / 7

Group B Feedback

Group B Feedback. Copac Collection Management Tools Project Workshop on Retention and Preservation, March 12 th 2012 . 1. Information on items in other libraries. Clarification on difference between ‘poor condition’ and ‘damaged’. Need to be explicit about completeness.

ash
Télécharger la présentation

Group B Feedback

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 1. Information on items in other libraries Clarification on difference between ‘poor condition’ and ‘damaged’. Need to be explicit about completeness. Issues regarding real commitment behind intention to retain. Assessment and decision dates must be part of the record. Additional suggestions: Partially digitised items, e.g. Under CLA HE for digital course packs or e reserves Potential for creating shared service between HE institutions Where an ebook is available Permanence of print v. e? Need information about e book e.g. how it relates to print, walk-in access, Portico etc.. Where additional alternative formats are available, e.g. microfilm / print Less common for monographs?

  3. 1. Information on items in other libraries Ranking: a) Intention to retain (8) c) Damage (26) e) Whole work digitisation? (28) g) Ebook status (34) b) Condition (40) d) ILL policy (47) f) Partial digitisation (51) h) Additional alternative formats (52)

  4. 2. Current practice and issues • Intention to retain • - rarely recorded, labour intensive, accuracy diminishes over time • - Could CCM automate at collection level? • c) Damage • - Sometime used • - What about annotated work and identifying unique value? • e) Whole work digitisation? • - Who has digitised and where hosted, Open Access?, IPR, 856 linking for in-house • g) Ebook status • - Variation of practice • - FRBR! Next-generation discovery

  5. 2. Current practice and issues • b) Condition • - Rarely used, varies e.g. Special Collections, not recorded in MARC? • - Could CCM ask Copac? • d) ILL • - Reflected in loan status / policy already? • - Changing attitudes to sharing? • f) Partial digitisation? • - Potential but limited to HE • h) Additional alternative formats • - Less applicable to monograph collections?

  6. 3. Additional questions Yes - but GIGO, e.g. record quality, issues over unique identifiers What do OCLC offer? How do they approach this? Data quality - chicken and egg - the need for standards and accuracy to enable collaboration can drive quality (e.g. UKRR experience) b) Yes - would need to be flexible across several scales - e.g. national, regional, local, consortial etc... c) No consensus

  7. 4. Additional questions ‘Collaborating to compete’ Enable development of USPs Allow optimal resource allocation Provide Quality Assurance (e.g. As for UKRR) Zombie apocalypse silver lining - DIY and collective autonomy Standards are crucial, e.g. number of copies to preserve nationally 5. Transfer Debate - preservation ‘versus’ access Need to avoid gaming or a race to the bottom

More Related