Present:  Carole Kiehl (UCI, Chair), Karen Coyle (CDL), Nancy Douglas (UCR), Gail McClenney (UCSB), Jain Fletcher
(LAUC representative), Lee Leighton (UCB), Pat French (UCD), Sara Shatford Layne (UCLA), Lai-Ying
Hsiung (UCSC), Luc Declerck (UCSD), Bruce Miller (UCM), Paul Wakefield (UCSF).  

Introductions were made and new members welcomed.

Follow up to the work done last session with Nancy leading:

1. It was noted that the issue of adding on order or in process records had been discussed and decisions confirmed by our public service and collections colleagues.  These kinds of records will not be added to the catalog.

2. Brief Record Standard: we discussed the question SOPAG sent us on why have a standard and not enforce it.

• Bruce noted that SOPAG and the ULs were interested in promoting system wide consistency.
• While past UC policy was to adhere to the previously existing brief record standard, in practice this did not always happen.
• Issue of having records that could not be added e.g. UCSC has in-house created records that are for aggregator package Nexis Lexis.   However it was said that these may meet minimum standards. Sara pointed out that these records raise a different issue - since they are separate records for electronic serials, and as such adding them would represent a departure from the SCP single record policy for serials.
• It was decided to add language to our standards document that  questions or concerns re the policy (i.e. to request an exception ) should be addressed to HOTS.  Nancy to add.
• Problem is that CDL cannot enforce the policy automatically.  Some fields are mandatory only when applicable and the system cannot determine that. It was decided to strengthen the policy statement by saying that the elements used in the merging algorithm are mandatory when applicable. Nancy to add.
• It was decided to add contact info for reporting errors in Melvyl - Karen is to check on contact button in new Melvyl and update the list of contacts.
• Date of implementation?  January 1 2003 to be effective date.
• Carole to report these discussions to SOPAG (asap this write up approved) and to follow up with the formal document when amended by Nancy.

3. Single versus Separate records:

• It was noted that separate records for monographs (excluding government publications, which have a single record as a result of GPO cataloging policy) are best for data management - utilizing batches of separate records maximizes our TS resources and provides access.
• Public Service groups (HOPS and RSC)  prefer a single display -  to avoid confusion.
• The issue is really about display in Melvyl.  Karen explained that the issues around merging holdings for display is problematic. Melvly-T will not keep records apart based on reproduction codes (008/23) as old Melvyl did. Records for different versions of the same item will be merged if their cataloging is sufficiently similar (based on the fields that were listed as fields used in merging).
• Nancy asked if electronic records could be displayed first consistently in Melvyl - can we sort by format? We can limit by format?
• Carole asked if icons for format could be used to assist clarity?
• Karen noted that there had not been a lot of feedback re the new Melvyl catalog yet but feedback and suggestions would be welcomed.
• If the location is on the internet could we limit to one display to avoid duplication??
• CDL and SCP had discussed the merging algorithm and agreed on modifications     for Melvyl-T.  It was first written in 1984 but was recently revised. HOTS decided to review the merging algorithm again as a future agenda item.
• Nancy to write up this discussion and send to group. Carole to then forward to SOPAG and other all campus groups.  We suggest implementing in December 1, 2002 unless we hear otherwise.
• Need HOTS approval for SCP Steering Committee's Data Requirements for Creation of SCP Monographic Separate Records.  This document was just submitted to HOTS and needs to be shared with cataloging and systems depts.  on campuses to get feedback. Questions to ask are:

• Do campuses agree that these data elements should be found in each SCP monographic record?  Should any others appear?
• Would/can  campuses agree to following the same data requirements in their locally created cataloging?
• Are campuses willing/able to send only separate records to Melvyl for electronic monographs cataloged locally?

Melvyl update:

Karen gave a Melvyl update.  Should be coming up in Dec.  22 million records now in the production database.  Input still coming in.  Problem with slow backups has been solved by having more than one copy of the database.  Creating a general recovery plan - planning to have uninterrupted service through redundancy and failover.

AIM: A very general discussion took place.  There were a number of questions regarding the model:

• Bruce shared that SOPAG has been very interested in the model.  It is a philosophical not an implementation plan. Bruce observed that OCLC is also considering strategies for access integration.  It reminded him of Cliff Lynch's theoretical discussion on networked layers via OSI which informed professional thinking and planning (even though TCP/IP became the de facto standard). 
• Karen asked what problem this was seen to be solving. 
• ILS vendors need to be integrating access more. Compare Sage and searchlight
• AIM's premise is to keep like things together and like metadata together in separate buckets to maximize flexibility- but it was pointed out that this is not always true in the model (eg MARC is metadata and photos are the thing - yet both in same bucket). 
• Karen noted that there is another layer needed - retrieval is not the last step.   More can be done to help the user e.g. "only show me the stuff that I have not seen." 
• Delivery of a simple list of retrievals is no longer sufficient, especially for large databases.  User tools are needed. 
• Seemed to be confusion re the diagram and example search.  Some thought this was an assumption of the design (first search by keyword and get response sorted by material type) Bruce thought this was just one example. 
• Bruce mentioned ease of backup and data management. 
• Broadcast searching is the lowest common denominator - need a layer to enhance the data e.g. Melvyl the union catalog pulls things together. 
• Single point of search for user - the interface is an important value added feature. 
• Sara pointed out that the model assumes access using only descriptive metadata for bibliographic entities.  Authority data has not been incorporated into the model - and would need to be incorporated into an existing or additional layer.  Authority data affects both retrieval and the organization or retrieved results. 
• Carole noted that if the data layer has all the information then it can be drilled directly - why add another aggregation layer? Seems from discussion to be more need for additional layers at the upper level - not at lower level. 
• Lee said that he wants search to be exclusive as well as inclusive. 
• Bruce said that SOPAG wants us to be thinking bigger and broader. 
• Carole to write up brief notes on the discussion and send to SOPAG. 
• Nancy remind us all that we had - at our last meeting -  agreed to rotate note taking at the meetings.  It was agreed that at the next meeting, it will be Luc's turn to write up notes.
  

CDC's Shared Print Journal Collection:  The recent proposal and procedures were discussed

• Surprise was expressed at the speed of the decision to pursue this.  Information was new to HOTS members. 
• Karen said that Bev French wants to work out the procedures before implementation begins. 
• Paul mentioned that there were preservation issues to address also. 
• Bruce shared that SOPAG and the ULs wanted to move forward. 
• UCLA was picked to receive and process the Elsevier journals.  They have a sense of urgency as they will be receiving the issues soon and need to get a new location in place asap in order to process and send the materials out to SRLF. (Their system doesn't allow a temp. location to be used for items and globally updated later). 
• Luc mentioned that ACM journals were still being shipped to UCSD. 
• Karen pointed out that there are technical issues for CDL to create and display a new UC-wide location.  One such (CDL) was just recently eliminated from Melvyl. There is a certain interaction between the source of the record (ie UCLA) and the display of the location (UCL) and the use of limits by library.  All of this needs to be thought through before creating records. 
• It was suggested that local catalogs may not want to include the print holdings information as the materials would not be onsite but at SRLF. This would make it less problematic for adding locations in Melvyl (as there would be fewer instances of the same UC Collections copy being uploaded). However, Pat pointed out that if local sites withdrew the last of their print copies they may want to add the record for the "UC Collections" copy. 
• Stats would be an issue (ULs divided as to how to count)  but doesn't need to be resolved now. 
• We agreed to take the information back to our campuses and get feedback on this as a proposal (eg does anyone foresee problems with this approach? Return input to HOTS in email. 
• Implementation deadline?  It was suggested we take till Jan 1 to work out the processing details.
  

SCP Steering Committee membership:

• Carole proposed making this committee represent all campuses. 
• Bruce shared the history of the group with new attendees- it was formed as a small advisory group to identify and explore issues related to shared cataloging at a time when all campuses did not have experience in this field. 
• Some thought that the smaller group could find communication easier. 
• Some campuses (e.g. UCI ) have felt that they are not getting much communication or opportunity for input 
• Some campuses are smaller and do not have the personnel to attend meetings - prefer the liaison approach. 
• Pat shared that HOTS appointed the original steering committee but did not specify a rotation plan.  The charge was updated in 2000 and the committee were directed to add members as needed. 
• Carole will write a proposal on updating the charge and membership for review by the group.
  

Principal Analysts series in libraries was discussed:

• Lee shared his concerns with this series moving into the Library - which has recently happened at Berkeley. 
• This has already happened at UCSF and at UCSD. 
• Problematic as these staff can earn more than Librarians yet do the same things. 

• Lee asked what others were doing - most were using some of these records but not a lot and were upgrading as necessary. 
• Lee thinks in this case " nothing is better than something." 
• It was suggested that these records be coded to allow anyone to upgrade so that we can all share in the upgrading rather than all duplicate the effort. 
• Bruce asked Lee to write to him formally in his capacity of OCLC Members Council  member - he will inquire as to what may be done.
  

Future agenda items.  (We can discuss how to proceed with these on email):

• HOTS/HOPS to plan a road show for CDL on the new Melvyl - sponsor a meeting on display issues. 
• Merging algorithm. 
• Campuses other than UCSD being SCP agents. 
• SCP Data Requirements for Creation of SCP Monographic Separate Records  - need to be discussed and approved. 
• HOTS to recommend having a Digital Library Forum on the new Melvyl catalog.