|
Yale University Library
Service Quality
Improvement Council
Bibliographic Access Group meeting minutes
10/30/2001
Present: Steven Arakawa, Nicole Bouché (chair), Sue Crockford-Peters,
Tobin Nellhaus (recording),
Kalee Sprague, Joan Swanekamp.
Absent: Rich Richie, Paul Stuehrenberg, Jim Shetler.
1. TELNET ACCESS. The issue has basically been resolved: telnet access
will continue
for online databases that offer it. The library systems office is developing
a system
that will ensure security, along with a message to users. There will
be a period of testing,
but it probably doesn't need to be long.
2. LOST AND MISSING ITEMS.
(A) Message to Users. When users encounter an item in Orbis2 that is
lost or missing
(final copy situations), they can receive a Web page containing links
for further information.
BAG needs to determine the content of that page, and who should actually
write it. Both RSC
and Access Services have an interest. Information should include:
--Why the user is receiving the message (e.g., the item has been missing
for a long time,
has been superceded, can't be replaced, or some other reason)
--There may be other copies or editions listed in the catalog (may need
to redo the search)
--The item may also be obtained through ILL/Borrow Direct
--The user can contact a reference librarian for further information
or assistance.
There was discussion on whether the list should also include offering
the option of recommending
that the item be replaced. It is possible that ILL reports and having
the user contact a
reference librarian may serve that function. Since there are various
pros and cons, the issue
was referred to RSC for further consideration. Options on presentation
(e.g., using a pop-up
window) were also raised; these require more information on technical
possibilities.
(B) Policy Statement. There needs to be greater clarification on several
matters,
including who actually will do the work in each library, and what procedures
will be adopted
for implementing the policy. Another matter for clarification is that
the draft policy covers
routine replacements initiated by LSO reports, but not replacements
initiated by selectors on
an individual title basis.
There are special problems with missing volumes in multivolume sets
and serials. Should these
be flagged as permanently missing? Joan Swanekamp will write a statement
identifying the pros
and cons to this. There is also a question of holding to MARC standards.
Selectors should be
notified, but technical problems need to be worked out. The general
question is (a) how do we
present information in existing records (especially where both an incomplete
and a complete set
exists), and (b) what recommendations do we make for future records?
Respectfully submitted,
Tobin Nellhaus
©
2001 Yale University Library.
Last modified February 5, 2002.
Send comments about this web site to the library web administrator at
Library Administrative Services.
This file is located at http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC
|
