Serials Working Group (SWG)
Meeting Minutes, Mar. 05, 2002

PRESENT: Pat Loghry, chair, Aaron Bales, Shelly Bates, Jean Cane, Barb Cole, Diane Gram, Nastia Guimaraes, Mandy Havert, Ina Kahal, Karen Lanser, Mary Lehman, Robin Lisek, Karen Malling, Pam Nicholas, Lisa Stienbarger, Debby Webb, LaDonna Weeks.
ABSENT: Rachel Boyd, Barb Connelly, Nita Hashil, Belinda Hoffman, Bozena Karol, Laurie Lawson, Jayne Schlutt, Leigh Taylor.

Agenda for SWG as announced by Pat via SWG-L:
1. Mail room bags and delivery project.
2. Report on the "In Transit" project.
3. Report on removing [public display of] "In Process" note.
4. Announcements.

Minutes from the last meeting (Dec. 04, 2001) were not reviewed.

1. Mail room bags and delivery project.

Pam reported that Liz Dube opposes the use of cloth bags. Lisa checked with Liz Dube and Liz approves the use of totes. Pam reminded the group of the limited space in the serials check-in room. Aaron suggested bundling the issues (in plastic wrap or ties). Diane has access to catalogs showing totes in various sizes and will report back to the group at its next meeting.

Report on the "In Transit" project.

Diane reported orally on Chem/Physics' pilot project of clearing the new item process status TR (in transit) to explicitly acknowledge receipt of pieces in her branch that had been marked as received and in transit by Serials Acquisitions' check-in processes. Time studies reveal only a small difference in amount of time to do this "online" check-in at the branch compared to the existing Kardex check-in.

Working directly in the Aleph Items application, Diane had the following observations: Errors in designation (enumeration and chronology) of pieces checked in at Serials Acquisitions can be readily identified (Diane works with Jayne to remedy). It's easy to see what claiming activity is in progress. Reports can be run to identify any pieces taking longer to have TR cleared (Diane likes this tracking mechanism). A disadvantage is not being able to see notes recorded in the Kardex for special handling (e.g., letting someone know a particular issue has arrived, etc.). One glitch is the occasionally observed TR process status associated with an expected issue (Jayne/Pam are investigating). Suggestions were offered about using triggers and/or Aleph's "routing" capabilities to address some concerns. Diane stated that some of the needed notes are contained in a "transfers" database maintained at the branch.

Other branch representatives are generally eager to use TR as well. Diane requests a couple more weeks to test and to resolve the TR coding problem on expected issues. Diane and Jayne are to develop needed training tools for the other receiving locations as they begin to adopt this new functionality.

3. Report on removing [public display of] "In Process" note.

Planning is underway to make the current public display (HO 852 $z) of an "In Process" note showing on some records for electronic journals into a nonpublic (HO 852 $x) note. As a public note, it can confuse patrons about whether an electronic resource is truly available (the resource is available; it is completing the editing of the cataloging record that is "in process"). Pat reported that by the end of this week Phil Andrzejewski will be posting relevant information to Aleph142-Discuss-L regarding testing this change.

Debby had raised to SWG-L the question of what we should do about items in the system having the old (and no longer valid) item status BD. Such items show in the public view and can be confusing. Some of these instances come from the Aleph 11.4 version when there was no history file for item records collapsed for binding. Another use of BD was to code item records of issues being disposed of after their limited retention period had passed. BD has also been used on the analyzed items received on a record whose holdings are only partially analyzed (and must therefore display to the public).

After discussion, the group identified the following action plan:
a. On an item record with item status BD which represents an issue subsequently bound, the item record is to be deleted (it will go into the history file).
b. On an item record with item status BD which represents an issue disposed of after its limited retention period has passed, the item record is to be deleted (it will go into the history file).
c. On an item record with item status BD which represents receipt of an analyzable issue (subsequently cataloged on it own bib record), on the record where unanalyzed issues are to display to the public, the item record's item status code is to be changed from BD to 98 (AnalyticSer-Sup).
d. On an item record with item status BD and a real barcode number, the item record's item status code is to be changed to the appropriate item status (typically 01, or possibly 97, etc.) to reflect circulation aspects. Branches are to do the relevant item records for their own sublibraries. Lisa is taking responsibility for having the Hesburgh items handled. Aaron offered to help branches run the report that shows any remaining item records having item status BD. By the next SWG meeting it is hoped that all such reports will show no remaining item status BD.

Announcements.

Pat announced that in connection with the need for Collection Development to identify a 6% reduction in materials expenditures by June 01, she is working with Bill Sill and others to develop an online cancellations database. The database design includes features that can minimize the amount of keying by selectors (e.g., automated populating of bibliographic description fields based on supplying the Aleph system number, etc.). Pat will be making a presentation to a collection development forum on Mar. 07. She will update SWG on this topic at its next meeting.

In order for Natasha Lyandres to be able to attend SWG meetings, the meeting day of the week would need to be changed. While there was some discussion that first Wednesday of the month at 2:00 might be workable, Pat will send such a message to SWG-L for additional comment for a week's period. CorporateTime entries will be set up according to the resolution reached. Natasha can request to Pat about being added to SWG-L.

Respectfully submitted,
Mary Lehman