BTECH minutes - 9/3/03

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

BERKELEY TECHNICAL SERVICES DISCUSSION GROUP MEETING MINUTES

Wednesday, September 3, 2003
9:00am to 11:00am
303 Doe Library
Recorder: Jessica Lemieux
Guests: Jim Boydstun

Announcements:
Judith Walker announced that Steve La Follette is back.

Ginny Moon announced that she has passed her library star on to Judith 
Weeks, for her excellent job in leading BTECH!

Agenda:

1)CD Pockets and other media / Jim Boydstun

Jim reported that he had been to a meeting to address all of the mixed 
media storage problems that have been cropping up recently, and they got a 
tour of available options from the bindery.   For CD-ROM’s, Conservation 
has purchased peel and stick pockets with flaps.  They can be stuck inside 
the back cover of a hardbound book, and the CD can circulate with the 
book.  They used to have the bindery make a Tyvek pocket for CDs, but this 
is much more expensive than the peel and stick version.  CONS also have 
peel and stick pockets for 3x5 diskettes, if needed.  The peel and stick 
pockets are an especially nice solution because the book provides a stiff 
backing to protect the CD.  This type of pocket should not be used with 
paperbacks, however, because their covers are not stiff enough to prevent 
flexing.  Jim passed out small packets of 10 pockets to those that wanted 
them, and said that if you have occasional need for them, you can send him 
an email request.  If your branch needs a lot of the pockets, then he 
suggests that it will be easier for you to order them directly.  CONS 
orders the pockets (Poly Adhesivepak, #27004) from www.univenture.com, and 
the company will send you a box of samples to choose from if you don’t want 
to use the same ones. Another good option for CD storage is to have the 
bindery make a Pam Pocket for it.

The bindery has just purchased a Kasemake machine, and this opens up new 
options for multimedia storage in boxes.  The machine comes with 50 
templates, and the bindery wants to reduce these down to 5 or 6 choices to 
fit most needs. We used to use phase boxes, but have been shifting away 
from them because of the expense. Phase boxes cost between $25 and $75 
each, while Kasemake boxes will cost $5-7.  Right now the bindery is 
experimenting with different materials to get a more durable board.  When 
sending items that need boxes to CONS, there is no need to try to 
differentiate among boxes, just write box on the slip.  For items that 
circulate, we are moving towards clamshell boxes, though very heavy books 
and items that need compression will get a phase box.  Jim showed some of 
the first attempts, which prompted Ginny Moon to ask whether the microfilm 
box size would actually fit in the cabinet, and offered to try it out when 
Jim said he wasn’t sure.

2) STO fixes / Ginny Moon

Ginny Moon caught us up-to-date with the latest fixes recently made to 
correct records with old storage notes and records lacking needed storage 
notes. There have been 3 major projects involving corrections or additions 
to Gladis Holdings that affect stored material: the migration of NRLF to 
Gladis (massive STX notes generated); corrections of records for loading 
into the new Melvyl (SUMs added and corrections made to clean up structure 
of record in holdings); and the most recent, corrections to records so that 
the correct information is in place for Page NRLF to function properly on 
Pathfinder. The last computer update involved 3 types of changes:

A)Single volume monograph with a STO note and one V/C with a NRLF barcode. 
The STO was automatically deleted with only the NRLF barcode remaining. 
This correction allows the NRLF barcode to display and be used for paging. 
The existence of the STO note prevented that.

B)Single volume monograph with a STO note, but no NRLF barcode attached. A 
list was created and NRLF staff resolved all problems. Most were unlinked 
analytics that got linked; some had typos in the call#s that were corrected 
and moved to a higher record (lower record deleted); and for those few not 
at NRLF, the owning library was notified via e-mail.

C)MVMs and Serials with SUM notes, but no storage note (STO or STX): 
records were identified and run through the STX program. NRLF is still 
working on the trouble log, but should finish it soon.  There are 2 pieces 
of good news: the storage notes are now correct in structure and accurate, 
so there shouldn’t be anymore large scale fixes; the 2nd is that NRLF has 
taken over responsibility for STO and STX fields and will take care of any 
reported problems.

If you see anything that looks odd, send an e-mail to: 
nrlftech@library.berkeley.edu  Put “Review Storage note” in the subject 
line. Paste the Gladis number or the brief display in the message 
section.  Ginny reminded members that a SUM note is needed on any record 
that has more than one item, even those for a single volume mono, but with 
multiple copies. Jane Kelley then noted that there is a log for missing SUM 
notes.  Branch staff are notified about their individual records lacking 
SUMs.  She reminded everyone to try to keep on top of fixing those 
records.  Judith Walker commented that she has noticed some SUM’s where 
everything was scrunched together and reminded everyone that if there is no 
space after a comma, the SUM will not display correctly. People were 
cautioned against doing simple cut-and-paste to construct one from the 
other.  Additional editing is always required to get each one done 
properly, e.g. space vs. no space before and after parentheses. V/C format 
and SUM formats are not the same.

3) GLADIS/Innopac review / Armanda Barone

Armanda is part of a small group convened by Lee Leighton to look at the 
GLADIS/Innopac system.  They are particularly interested in hearing about 
the following topics: serials control, acquisitions, processing, and 
interfaces between the two systems.  They are most interested in the 
comments of people new to Berkeley who have worked with other systems, 
since those who've worked here for a long time are more likely to be used 
to getting around the quirks and are not thinking about them anymore. One 
issue was immediately raised, the lack of an integrated system for 
ordering.  This lack means one can't look at public displays to find the 
information, and it produces too much work in a time-sensitive area.  If 
you have any comments regarding problems you have noticed between Innopac 
and GLADIS, please send these to Armanda.

4)Innopac/GLADIS loading errors / Judith Weeks

This particular GLADIS/Innopac problem primarily affects books that are 
owned by more than one library, which are unfortunately also usually high 
demand items.  The last unit to get the book has their call number deleted 
and replaced with “On order for…”  Though systems has been working on 
solving this problem, they are not sure if the problem is triggered by the 
received date or by the payment that is entered into the Innopac order 
record.  This problem is also affecting multiple copies and monographically 
ordered serials from Yankee or Academic. Our assumption had been that 
holdings ARE protected if the record level is other than o-level. However, 
it turned out not to be the case that holdings were protected once we'd 
changed a record from o-level to p-level, or f-level.  Eileen Pinto is 
doing some re-programming to fix that problem, now that it's been 
discovered what a mess things can become, if holdings aren’t protected!  If 
you see instances of this, fix them if you can or notify sermaint or 
monmaint if you can’t.  Please put in the subject line of the message in 
quotes "ordered for call #" to help us sort these problems and fix
them quickly.

An example of this problem happened yesterday in BIOS.  The BIOS call 
number was deleted when ANTH’s info loaded.  Though BIOS put the call 
number back in, they will have to keep an eye on the title, because the 
call number will likely be deleted again when the BIOS info 
loads.  Everyone needs to be aware of this problem while working a public 
service desk.  One should check for a *urecd note when viewing something 
“Ordered for”, because you might have the book but the call number has 
disappeared.  We should also note that there will be at least one call 
number in the record; it is only the call number of the last branch to 
receive their copy that is deleted.  When you send an email about this 
problem, you should include your (overlaid/deleted) call number.

Sheila Wekselbaum noted that this is affecting PromptCat material, and 
though Technical Services has already had a meeting about it, they did not 
have a systems person present.  She plans to set up another meeting with a 
Systems person there, and to go through the workflow for PromptCat.  She 
believes the problem has to do with the received date, but is not yet 
certain.  She has asked catalogers to hold books if there is no received 
date in the order record, to do the work later, make a printout and track 
it.  It is extremely important to have recent examples if we need to go to 
the vendors about this, so please keep sending information on this.  When 
asked about the meaning of the received date in the order record, 
(especially in cases where it says on order in the record and is not in the 
owning unit but has a received date), Sheila responded that the received 
date is the PAYMENT date.  If the owning unit does not yet have the book, 
this usually this means that they're working on it; it could be at the 
bindery or it could need further work. Our PromptCat profile has been 
changed so that we are getting better records and the catalogers don’t need 
to spend as much time on each book, but some still need a lot done when 
they come to us.  Carol McEwan suggested that more documentation would 
enable us to notice problems like this sooner.  She pointed out that the 
way it is right now, with no integrated system, certain people each know a 
chunk of information, and there's no formal means of communication.

5. Marking and Maintenance / Sheila Wekselbaum

Sheila announced that she has made a proposal to the Library Council to 
decentralize marking and monograph record maintenance.  The marking 
division was hit particularly hard by the GA cut.  The proposal is that the 
branches would handle the marking for serials and RLIN cataloged 
material.  The proposal for marking would not apply to OCLC 
materials.  Also, higher level branch staff would be trained to perform 
some bibliographic maintenance of their book records, so that they would 
not generate the high volume of requests to monmaint. Serial records have 
been excluded from this proposal, it is for monograph records 
only.  Hopefully this would ease the load on Lee and Tonette so that they 
could concentrate on their duties other than monmaint and would cause less 
frustration among branch staff waiting for their maintenance to be done. 
She also noted that bindery materials had been deliberately left out of 
this proposal, because it is a larger issue.  Sheila also pointed out that 
smaller libraries might not have enough staff to have someone trained and 
in that case those branch staff who are trained would need to be 
shared.  There was consensus that this would not be an acceptable 
arrangement as all branches took the same budget cut and all are short on 
resources and they will not have time to fix other Branch's problems.

Several people expressed concerns that they would not have the equipment to 
accomplish these tasks.  Many staff members do not have Windows 2000 on 
their computers, and would have to get it installed before they could use 
the label-capturing macro for marking.  Because of this, it was pointed out 
that several things needed to be considered in the proposal.  A request 
would need to be put into systems by Lee, the proposal would need AUL 
support, and we would need to know how many people needed 
upgrading.  Another equipment concern was the load this would put on 
printers in the branches.  Currently most laser printers are shared among 
staff and would not be available for printing out labels on a regular 
basis, so dedicated printers for marking were suggested as a 
solution.  Another broader concern that was raised was concern that 
patterns of types of problems will not be seen as easily when problems crop 
up as they would with centralized maintenance.  Chikako also suggested that 
Technical Services might be able to borrow some of Circulation’s student 
workers to accomplish the marking tasks, according to the situation in 
individual branches.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 A.M.