Authorities Task Force Report– Tina Gross Discussed method to add death dates to personal name headings. Add 4XX field , which will force it to flip, and then remove 4XX field later. Timing is an issue; it is a large scale project that needs volunteers, also how do we identify which personal name headings to flip? Adam – another consequence: is it will affect response times and loading records, but we should go ahead with the proposal. Group voted to allow Authorities Task Force to go ahead with the proposal. Jean Kramer asked about the logistics of this project. Tina responded that a list would be created and it would be divided up. Bobby—did we vote too fast? Is more discussion needed? Why do we need to delete these 4XX fields once we added them? This is a good idea, but if we end up going with WMS, would this be needles work? Tina—that applies to a lot of work that we do. Adam – Better to start it, get the procedures down. Dianne—Tina, can you write out a procedure for those who choose to help with this? Steve- How many records are there? No way to know. Tina – We’re not saying we’re going to flip all the headings. Steve – Can we automate this if there are thousands of records? Deb Domek – It’s not that much work, really. Finding the records cannot be automated, but the flip is automatic. Steve – Can we just add the 4XX fields to every record? General consensus was no. Monica – Is there a way to browse through the author index? No, you have to look and choose who would be most important. Lori asked Deb if there is a report to show matching authority files. The answer is no. Dianne – Tina will create a procedure for catalogers who want to take part in the death date flipping project.
RFP discussion led by Sarah Quimby. MUST HAVE SHOULD HAVE WOULD BE NICE
We do not want to put everything is as a MUST HAVE; we want something different than Aleph. A lot of functionalities were put in the systems section. Sarah asks PALS people – Do we need to have a vote to approve the section as a whole? Steve is unsure, says probably; it’s more of a consensus, broad agreement. Sarah – Do we vote to approve with amendments? Steve is unclear.
E1.1. MUST HAVE. Should there be anything on RDA? No.
E1.2. MUST HAVE.
E1.3. MUST HAVE. Change to “…classification schema within a single member library, a group of libraries and across the consortium.”
E1.4 MUST HAVE. Change to “Describe format of data.”
E1.5. SHOULD HAVE. Changed from MUST HAVE after diacritics and non-roman characters was separated out to E1.6.
E1.6. MUST HAVE [Diacritics and non-roman characters]
E2. Evolving Standards
E2.1. MUST HAVE
E3. Holdings Management/Items E3.1 MUST HAVE. Erica Nutzman – language may be confusing for vendors (item and holding records) Bobby – item record is part of the holding record in WMS. “Describe how the LMS creates and stores records for the items in a collection.” Bobby – We have to get away from the word “records” “Describe how the LMS creates and stores item level creates and stores item level data in relation to other data.
E3.2 MUST HAVE, BUT NEEDS EDITING. Changes in language. Associated with/to. Discussion re: a serial with many item records – is there a limit to how many items are attached? Bobby – last sentence should read, “Explain how items with different formats can be attached to the same bib record.” Has this gotten too generic? Erica – WMS was not able to migrate all the item records.
E3.3. SHOULD HAVE. “Describe the capability for moving item data between holding records.”
E3.4. SHOULD HAVE. Put period after “view” and delete the rest. Kathleen – Would “harvesting” have to do with reclamation project?” No, this is referring to item records. What about “batchloads” instead of “harvesting” NOTE FOR TASK FORCE: Discuss “harvesting.”
E3.5 MUST HAVE. Add “such as bound-withs” “On multiple bibliographic records, such as bound-withs.”
E4.1. MUST HAVE.
E.5. Authority control
E5.1 MUST HAVE. Monica - relationship with E5.7? Put “thesauri” into E5.7. Change “field to be controlled” to “data to be controlled”
E5.2. MUST HAVE “Bibliographic data” instead of “bibliographic fields.”
E5.3. MUST HAVE.
E5.4. MUST HAVE.
E5.5. MUST HAVE. During what import? Just say “authority data.”
E5.6. SHOULD HAVE. Where? GUI or discovery tool? Both.
E5.7. MUST HAVE. Add “thesauri”
E6. Quality Control/Batch Updates
E61. MUST HAVE
E6.2. Discussion of MUST HAVE vs. SHOULD HAVE. Does it need to be reworded? Identifying invalid URLs for content vs. description FOR SCORING: Content is a MUST, Images or descriptive info is a SHOULD.
E6.3 MUST HAVE.
E6.4. MUST HAVE
E6.5 NICE TO HAVE
E7. Physical Processing
E7.1. SHOULD HAVE.
E7.2. NICE TO HAVE.
E7.3. MUST HAVE Adam—Isn’t this a circulation function?
E7.4. NICE TO HAVE.
E.8. Digital Asset Management Features
E8.1. MUST HAVE. Discussion re: must have. Is this critical to us accepting the product?
E8.2. Discussion re: is this redundant? Ask Lauren for clarification.
E9.1 MUST HAVE.
E9.2. MUST HAVE.
E9.3. NICE TO HAVE.
E9.4. MUST HAVE.
E9.5. SHOULD HAVE.
E9.6. Is this more of a systems issue? Move to systems and/or clarify.
E10. Reports and statistics
E10.1 MUST HAVE. Kathleen – Do we want to ask about the ability to write our own reports? Is this also addressed in systems? Steve – We should have cataloging reports.