BTECH minutes - 8/1/01

[Library Web Manager <webman@library.berkeley.edu>]

BERKELEY TECHNICAL SERVICES DISCUSSION GROUP
MEETING MINUTES

August 1 2001 
Recorder: Lisa Sanchez
Guests: Jody Bussell, Don Lee, Joe Mitola, Rebecca Green, Charis Takaro 

Announcements:

Pam announced that she has accepted a position as a bibliographic
analyst at the California Digital Library in Oakland for one year. She
will be working on the Melvyl Transition project. Her last day will be
August 6th. During Pam's absence, Sheila Wekselbaum will be assuming
responsibility as Assistant Head of Monographic Cataloging and Processing
Division. Judith Weeks will continue to convene the BTECHGRP meetings.
Please forward to Judith Weeks any topics you would like discussed. 

It was reported, from the Technical Services Council, that there is a
proposal to delete the library's holdings from OCLC once UCB's copy has
been withdrawn or the records deleted from GLADIS. Currently, misleading
information is found in OCLC that indicates ownership of items, which is
causing problems in Interlibrary Loan. No specifics were given but
preliminary discussions indicate that there will be more updates to
the BPM procedures for withdrawals in addition to training opportunities
in the near future. 

Pam and Tonette attended the last Circulation Services Group (CSG)
meeting. The purpose was to review the BPM replacement procedure for items
billed on CARS. There was great enthusiasm for ensuring that the procedure
be standardized. Tonette will be incorporate the changes suggested and
send a revised draft back to CSG for approval. In addition, Penny
Bertrang, Peter Soriano, Bruce Willaims, and Jutta Wiemhoff have
volunteered to collect and summarize all existing documentation on
billing, CARS, CUBS, RFR, etc. to be posted on the Library web. 

Agenda:

Collections Core Services/Claiming procedures and update on how
vendors / publishers are responding to our claims - Don Lee, Jody Bussell
Jody reported that in general, there have been some changes overall
in the publishing industry. More and more publishers are producing limited
numbers of runs of serial issues so as to not have a big back stock of
issues. This results in items going out of print quite fast so it is
important that you claim promptly. 

Specifically, in reference to problems we have been having with EBSCO
claim responses, Jody and Don offered important tips on controlling
serials claiming. 

It is imperative to promptly return monthly claim checkers to
EBSCO. It's crucial that the communication between EBSCO and us remain
open and responsive since most publishers are shortening claim limits.
They really rely on these being returned. Please feel free to
annotate these with any information you feel would help EBSCO in claiming
the exact issue(s) you need. Jody will be sending out to all units a list
of their titles that EBSCO has listed in their database with short claim
limits so that we may update our records as appropriate. 

When claiming lapsed EBSCO orders we should no longer be using
the terminology "AND FOLLOWING" on the claim. Instead we should start
using the phrase "AND ALL TO DATE". EBSCO understands and prefers this
terminology on claims. 

Hopefully, this minor change will help to speed up claiming processes
for non-start orders. Lastly, we should starting claiming 3 times before
referring to the selector. This change comes about because the publisher
thinking it is claimed too soon ignores many times the first claim. Keep
in mind that all claims whether 1,2 or 3, need to be made within one year
of publication. Any claims after that will probably not be honored.

As always use your best judgement in claiming and feel free to
contact the Payments Unit when you are having problems with your claims.
Don Lee has his own phone line now; you may call him at 643-8420. 

Barcodes 101/everything you need to know - Charis Takaro, Joe Mitola

There are 5 different types of barcodes that UCB uses: smart, piggyback,
dumb, double and patron id. 

Smart barcodes are used solely for barcoding projects. These
barcodes are produced using systems programming. The barcode and call
number for a given item appear together on the label sheet. Staff takes
these sheets into the stacks to find the volume and affix the barcode to
the proper volume. 

Piggyback barcodes are those used for sending volumes for
binding and new unbound books. They have 2 layers. The underside is a
clear plastic with a sticky barcode layered on top. These are generally
placed at the front of volume that will be bound, then peeled off to be
placed permanently in the back of the volume. They come in 2 colors, white
and canary yellow. The yellow piggybacks are generally used by promptcat
and the catalog department in unbound volumes. If you still have
any of the old blue piggyback barcodes you need to discard them and ask
the systems office to send you some new piggybacks. Most barcode
wands do not easily read the blue barcodes. 

Dumb barcodes are the most common; they are the standard barcode
that everyone uses. They are white and only one layer. These are the
standard barcodes that are placed in the back of our books and serials. 

Double barcodes, which are used exclusively in Bancroft, are
sheets of barcodes that have two exact barcodes. They are affixed to both
sides of a string looped through the casing of the book box. Bancroft
never directly applies a barcode to the physical piece of any of
their items. 

Patron id barcodes are the barcodes that are put onto library
cards at Doe. 

Charis and Joe also reminded staff not to reuse barcodes because
GLADIS problems can arise. Barcodes are inexpensive and plentiful so there
is no need to conserve. Likewise, it was mentioned that people should not
be reusing GLADIS records. This is a big no-no. GLADIS record numbers
are plentiful and free, so please just delete the old record and create a
new one.

Also discussed were the reasons why a barcode, when wanded into
GLADIS, might read "Warning: duplicate *l in GLADIS...". GLADIS was
designed to warn against duplicate barcodes so that the same barcode won't
accidentally be placed in two different GLADIS records. There are
however legitimate reasons for such a warning to appear. Any serial volume
with a title change bound in one physical piece but added to 2 or more
different GLADIS records, a serial analytic, an analyzed MVM. These are
case where you have one physical volume (with one or more issue number
inside) where the barcode must go into more than one GLADIS record. If you
ever enter a barcode and it gives you the warning "duplicate *l in
GLADIS" take it seriously. You may have accidentally already entered that
barcode in a different V/C and put in the wrong barcode, or you may have a
sheet of barcodes that are duplicated already in GLADIS. If the later
happens, please contact Charis or Joe in Systems to report you have a
sheet of duplicate barcodes. 

When training new staff, please instruct them to ALWAYS affix the new
barcode in the piece before they key or wand it, instead of wanding a
barcode on the sheet then affixing it in the piece. This helps ensure the
barcode in the piece matches what is in GLADIS. 

Jim Boydstun from Preservation / Treatment brought up the topic of
piggyback barcodes being put in volumes sent to conservation. The plastic
sheet left behind by a piggybackcan be very damaging, particularly in 
older items. Until a more permanent solution to this problem can be
created, library units sending volumes to Conservation for treatment
should not take the liberty to put a piggyback barcode in the volume. This
is already being done by Conservation staff when it is deemed necessary to
send a volume to the bindery for a new case. The Conservation staff have
been putting the piggyback on a post-it note in the front of the volume so
as to not damage the volume with the plastic backing left behind. Jim
asked Charis to look into the possibility of obtaining piggyback barcodes
that have a post-it type quality of the glue on the clear layer. She will
look into this. This topic of piggyback barcode use will come up for
further discussion at a future BTECHGRP meeting. 

The question was raised if it would be possible for BPD (Binding
Preparation Department) to not move the piggyback barcoded from the front
to the back, allowing that process to be done in the individual units.
Gary agreed that this may save his students time in processing
Conservation items returning from the bindery. This topic will be
discussed further at a future B-Tech meeting. 

INNOPAC/GLADIS records etiquette - open discussion
     
The topic on how important it was to use standard terminology
(etiquette) when annotating INNOPAC or GLADIS was discussed. It is
important that staff understand that INNOPAC and GLADIS records are shared
records. Any notations being used in the records should make sense,
be initialed, should not delete an existing note, and should not interfere
with checkin. People have been using nonstandard procedures in these
databases, particularly in INNOPAC. Since we share these records, such
nonconformity can cause confusion and/or more work for others. Please be
considerate and follow proper procedures as outlined in the Berkeley
Processing Manual. For example, use initials and proper notes. Don't use
abbreviations or inconsistent notes that others might not understand. To
note receipt of Sep/ae titles use the *urecd in the GLADIS v/c not the 
INNOPAC checkin box. Also double checkin by noting "recd" in each INNOPAC
checkin box can not only cause confusion to Checkin Division staff, but is
not following procedures as prescribed in the BPM. 

Members were then asked what etiquette remarks that they have seen in
INNOPAC and GLADIS that they liked and/or disliked. Some comments are
given below: 

INNOPAC

Good:
                                                
Clear understandable notes                                      
                                      
Dup notes in note box, why/when rec'd
                                      
Putting initials and dates
                                                              
Internal notes in order record                                           
                                          
NYP (not yet published) notes
                                        

Bad:

Not deleting check-in record when no longer needed

Double check-in

Inexplicable check notes and box-specific notes

Inconsistency in DATES between INNOPAC and GLADIS

Checking in another units issue


GLADIS

Good:
                                     
Initials and dates
                                                                        
Generating clean-up reports
                                                                           
*urecd notes                                     
                                            
When withdrawals are done correctly
                                                             
                                            
Bad:

Incomplete collapsing of months
                
Forgetting to delete records no longer needed 

Inconsistent shelving notes (and other field notes)

Doing withdraws in AutoCirc

Inconsistent abbreviations for months

Incorrect/incomplete withdrawals
                
Not removing*nX notes when no longer needed
               
Forgetting to delete dead CI#'s

The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 am.