BTECH minutes - 4/2/03

[Judith Weeks <jweeks@library.berkeley.edu>]

BERKELEY TECHNICAL SERVICES DISCUSSION GROUP MEETING MINUTES

Wednesday, April 2, 2003
9:00 AM-11:00 AM
303 Doe Library
Guests: Evelyn Kuo, Ai-lin Yang
Recorder: Jessica Lemieux

Announcements: There were no announcements.

Agenda:

1. Wade-Giles to Pinyin Conversion: Evelyn Kuo, Ai-lin Yang, Chikako Pierce

This issue came up when one of the branch units received some unbound 
issues from Periodicals, which had no apparent shelf tag and didn't seem to 
be a new title.  Because they shelve their unbound issues by title, this is 
how they discovered that their Chinese titles had been converted from 
Wade-Giles transliteration to Pinyin.  Therefore the old shelf tag was no 
longer accurate.

EAL has been working for a while on converting all Chinese titles in 
Wade-Giles to Pinyin.  Most units haven't noticed that there was a change, 
as many libraries shelve their unbound Chinese titles by call number (which 
did not change).  Charts showing the conversion from Wade-Giles to Pinyin 
and back again were passed around and an email will be sent out to the 
BTECH reflector with links to websites.

The majority of titles involved in this project have already been 
converted.  There are approximately 20,000 records left to convert or clean 
up before the project is complete.  Old Wade-Giles spellings can be found 
by searching in Melvyl by the ISSN if it is available.  Staff can also use 
the conversion charts passed out to find their old title.  The old 
Wade-Giles titles are still in Melvyl, the new Pinyin conversion titles 
have not been loaded.  So you will see a different title in Gladis (Pinyin) 
than you will in Melvyl (Wade-Giles).  Also, any new titles or title 
changes recently done have not yet been loaded into Melvyl but should 
appear as soon as the go ahead is given to load the converted titles. 
According to Charis, normally Gladis records load to Melvyl within 2-3 
weeks. However, Chinese records that have been converted to Pinyin will not 
be loaded to Melvyl until after the manual review and authority project are 
complete. When these records that are now being "held back" from Melvyl are 
sent, Systems will notify everyone.  Charis also stated that Systems could 
run a Boolean to create a list of affected titles for your unit, as long as 
some lead-time is given to her.

Chikako presented some of the problems EAL had run across in doing the 
conversion and their solutions, so that we would be aware of them. 
Low-level RLIN records, which were originally loaded onto RLIN from C-level 
Gladis records, reloaded on Gladis after Pinyin conversion as F-level 
records with encoding level: 5. The bib level needs to be changed back to C 
when bib edits are done on Gladis for such records.  In some cases 
bibliographic updates that were done only on Gladis were replaced with 
older version of RLIN records and are lost as a result.  Any records that 
were edited were sent to the review queue in order to catch this type of 
problem.   There were a few cases where the totally wrong title was 
substituted, but very few. On the holdings side, there were a few problems 
to watch out for. First, some of the converted records have double SUM 
fields in Gladis.  As long as both fields are identical, we can just delete 
one of the fields.  When they are different, we need to compare and choose 
the up-to-date one based on v/c fields, etc.  Second, some SUM fields just 
disappeared; in these cases the holdings information is still there on 
Innopac, so the information can be copied from the Innopac LIB. HAS 
field.  In some cases when there were two SUMs, one for holdings and one 
for Cumulative Indexes, only the Cum. Index SUM was transferred.  In order 
to fix this problem, a new SUM field should be created and the information 
copied from Innopac.

To wrap up the discussion, Judith reminded everyone that you will need to 
change your binding titles in Innopac. To do this, change your bind title 
field and add a note to the binding slip that says "New Title Format" at 
the bottom of binding slips the first time one sends a converted title to 
the bindery.  This will alert the bindery of the change so they will change 
the title in their computer.  It helps if you circle it in red pen, so that 
their eye is drawn to the note.  Also, you may want to change your unbound 
shelving tags if they have the old Wade-Giles title on them even if you 
shelve by call number.  Otherwise the title on the Innopac label will not 
match the tag, causing confusion.

It is also important to note if you work a public service desk that when 
looking a title up in Gladis the title will be different in Melvyl or not 
present in Melvyl at all if recently done as a new title or SEC.

2. Upcoming Serials Cancellations/ Jody Bussell

The Library is beginning a large serials cancellation project involving 
Elsevier Science Direct titles, starting with the year 2004.  The last 
large cancellation project was in 1997.  Serials are often targeted for 
cancellation because they are an ongoing expense and the prices 
inflate.  This inflation in serials costs is normal, especially if they are 
not carefully weeded.  This particular cancellation project will be large, 
and will last for two years.  The effect on Technical Services is expected 
to last much longer, anywhere from three to four years, because of the 
large amount of records cleanup that will be needed. The major difference 
between this cancellation project and past cancellations is the electronic 
journal component.  The titles available electronically through Elsevier 
Science Direct are the ones being targeted; Science Direct Academic titles 
will not automatically be canceled. UC will be maintaining an archive of 
print issues for these titles. The print archive is important in assuring 
access to our patrons, because publishers have pulled content from the web 
versions of their journals in the past.  There is currently a review 
process to determine which titles we will keep print subscriptions to, and 
it allows for faculty input. Once the decisions are made on what to cut, we 
notify the vendors in a batch process, and then later close the 
records.  Since we will still be paying for the electronic versions of 
these journals, we will only be saving a couple hundred thousand dollars, 
instead of the entire million dollars it currently costs us to subscribe to 
these titles.  Selectors get one year's worth of credit towards monographs 
when they cancel something.  This cancellation is difficult for the 
selectors, because of the new factor of weighing print against electronic 
access.  Selectors will not get full credit for CDL titles, and different 
publishers put up different amounts of content on their e-journals.  One 
especial concern is whether or not the Library will lose access to the back 
file.

In addition to the implications of the project on access, there are also 
concerns specific to its effect on Technical Services. Publishers are 
making shorter runs of their print journals, which makes print claiming 
much less effective. We really need to keep on top of our parameters and 
make sure to claim issues on time. Questions were asked about the role of 
Tech Services staff with e-journals, such as the feasibility of claiming 
electronic access like we do with print. E-journals are extremely sensitive 
to access problems, as there are many steps in getting the content out; 
publishers, vendors, distributors, and aggregators/platform suppliers are 
all involved. Since there are no checkin boxes with electronic 
publications, the only way to know what is most current is to check the 
site. Fortunately, content is usually posted online before the print issue 
comes out. Check-in records are never set up for electronic only journals. 
They will have only an order record showing payment. It is the 
responsibility of the owning unit to monitor their online collection 
notifying the appropriate person when there are payment or access problems.

One possible way for Technical Services people to get involved with 
e-journals is to contribute to the UC E-Links project this summer. Another 
problem with e-journals that was brought up is in keeping the current 
publisher in the record; the imprint field does not change, but 500 notes 
are put into the record. Changes in publisher are bib maintenance and 
should be directed to Serials Cataloging. It was also noted that some 
electronic periodicals are cataloged differently than their print 
counterparts; at times they are cataloged in the database/book format.

Once the journals are formally cancelled, each unit will be responsible for 
putting an SLF  (shelflist note)  in their serial records in Gladis if they 
desire.  It is helpful to have a "SLF : Cancelled (Budget constraints 
12/03)" in the record of cancelled titles.  This allows staff to clearly 
explain to patrons the reason the journal is no longer received. Each unit 
should be able to get the list of cancelled title from their 
selector.  Once the last issue of each cancelled title has been received it 
will be the owning units responsibility to bind up the title, close the 
summary and delete the checkin record and card from Innopac.  This is as 
they always do but on a larger scale.

Ginny Moon commented on the UC-wide implications of this topic.  UCLA is 
currently working with San Diego on the archive, which will be a UC 
collection.  Everyone will own the archive and pay for a share of 
it.  There are several unresolved issues surrounding this, however, such as 
who will be responsible for claiming and how each locale will be able to 
keep track of what's been received. UC San Diego and UCLA will be making a 
record for the print copies, but it is unclear whether they are going to 
send it to other campuses. Another question is how to let patrons know that 
we do have a print copy available, and how to reconcile the print and the 
online version.  The protocols of communication are also unclear; we do not 
now how many steps and how many people will be between our patrons and the 
print issue.

On an unrelated note, a new locat has been created and should start 
appearing in Gladis. We have a new reading room for certain social science 
titles in the main library called Rosberg.  The Innopac abbreviation is rosb.

3. Q & A Open discussion

The first question brought up for discussion was, which copy of a book 
should be sent to NRLF when copy 2 is in better condition than copy 
1.  Ginny Moon responded that the NRLF takes any copy sent to them and uses 
whatever information is on the spine label, so sending copy 2 does not make 
a difference.  Some suggested that if you are withdrawing the other copy or 
may in the future withdraw a copy, it is better to relable the better copy 
as copy 1 and send it to NRLF, leaving the more used copy 2 in your 
stacks.  That way in the future if you decide to withdraw, you have kept 
the better copy and withdrawing the record looks cleaner.  Ginny also 
reminded us of a few of the rules of depositing items in the NRLF. When you 
withdraw instead of storing an item, you are credited for it.  There should 
be no duplicates in NRLF, therefore you cannot deposit a copy if there is 
already one in the NRLF, unless it is owned by one of the Special 
Collections units. If the copy which is already in NRLF has limited 
circulation, you can deposit your copy if you are willing to allow 
unrestricted access.  In order to avoid duplication, you should search for 
the item you wish to store in Melvyl, qualifying the location as NRLF. A 
possible duplicate removal/review project would help to eliminate the 
current duplication in the NRLF, but there will be ample warning before 
such a project could occur, as all the contributing campuses would have to 
be involved.

Another question was what type and how much security the different branches 
provide for unbounds. Some of the smaller branches put security strips in 
all their unbounds, whereas other branches tend to tattle tape only the 
titles with a history high use or theft.  There was some debate over which 
type of security strip is most effective; most of the branches use the 
double sided 3M strips which are available through library supply, whereas 
1 or 2 branches prefer the ones which look like barcodes.  It was suggested 
that libraries who use security strips other than the double-sided 3M brand 
could contact Jewel about the possibility of getting their preferred strips 
available through Library Supply in addition to the 3M ones provided for them.

The next question was if other branches use GOBI ordering and what problems 
do they encounter.  Only a few people are authorized to use GOBI and no one 
in the group could answer.  Problems with GOBI may be better answered by 
Jim Gordon as no one in the group could answer.  A related question was 
then asked about how to stop getting duplicates due to approval plans 
sending things that are also being ordered from other sources.  Suggestions 
included keeping a paper order file, or using the paper slips and 
electronic order files sent by the approval plans and having the selector 
check Gobi and Bookbag to see what is already on order.

The last question asked was what percentages of subscriptions are received 
directly in the branches compared to what is received in Serials 
Check-in.  For most branches, documents, gifts, and exchanges are all 
received in centrally.  The decision to go to direct receipt in the 
branches for purchase titles was made many years ago when the Library 
started using Innopac.  The branches made the decision to change to direct 
receipt based on the units staffing ability to handle the 
workload.  Outside of those categories, the decision is based on what the 
piece needs such as marking or analytics.   Some units that changed to 
direct receipt have switched back to central receipt as staffing disappeared.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 AM.