1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEB. 5 AND FEB. 11 
The minutes of Feb. 5 and Feb. 11 have been approved.  

2. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATES 
Hixson spoke with Brian Warling and will report on the conversation to the group 
next week. 

Alan sent a summary of the NISO holdings standard to the group, we will also 
discuss this next week. 

3. REPORT ON CONVERSATION WITH CYNTHIA CLARK AND POLLING FOR CAMPUS INPUT 
French reported on the conversation she and Hayman had with Cynthia Clark, the 
group's SOPAG liaison, Wednesday Feb. 17. 

French and Hayman described the general cataloging approach we are recommending 
and then talked about the rationale for saying that two forms of records might be 
needed.  Clark thought that holding a general comment period on the guidelines and 
formally polling campuses on their need/desire for separate records also was a 
good idea.  She suggested that we go ahead and poll the campuses ourselves,  
directing a questionnaire to the heads of cataloging and carefully preparing the 
questions that we need feedback on.  She said that SOPAG will probably also want 
public services input but that SOPAG would handle that.  We also mentioned that it 
would be a good idea to make personal contact with our campus buddies when the 
guidelines are posted on the web site and to talk with them about the kind of 
feedback we need.   Clark thought that a one-month comment period would be needed. 

They also spoke about what work remains for us to finalize to complete our charge 
and whether we can meet the March 1 deadline.  French and Hayman told Clark that 
the task force has made progress in clarifying the options for record distribution 
and CDL linking and will probably be close to ready to present options by March 1. 
Clark recommended that we request an extension if we will not have a final report 
ready by that date (including editing and final presentation).  Because we need 
the comments on the guidelines and the results of the poll before we can make a 
final recommendation on whether and how to distribute complementary separate 
records, it seems that it would make sense to ask to be allowed to finalize the 
report at the end of the comment period.  This would mean that we would try to 
send out the poll ASAP, and then request a final date at the end of a month (with 
a few days to process results). 

Clark also recommended that we announce the draft guidelines to SOPAG with a 
transmittal message which summarizes what's left to do.  The transmittal message 
could also includes a list of other areas of work beyond our task force's tenure 
(such as other format materials, etc.).  

SOPAG's next meeting is on Feb. 26.  The task force will work to have the  
guidelines up and announced before that meeting (by the beginning of next week). 
SOPAG's  next meeting after that is on April 9.  Clark thought that it would be 
good for Hayman and French to attend that meeting and present the final task force 
report.  Looking at the calendar, if we send out a poll next week and ask for a 
response before March 26, we could spend the week of March 29-April 2 finalizing 
the report and send it to SOPAG one week before they meet. 
  

Re: Transmittal message to SOPAG 
This message will contain an explanation of what the guidelines represent, what 
the group will continue to work on, details about the poll and the suggested 
timing for the comment period.  We will suggest that the poll be sent on March 1, 
with responses by March 29 and a final report submitted by April 2. 

Re: Poll format 
The group discussed the format of the poll, and agreed that it would be best to 
include a narrative to explain our process, then ask specific questions. 
Some issues to be addressed are: 
1.  The plan is for the CCA to create records and distribute them to the CDL 
and campuses. 
2.  The need for complementary separate records 
3.  The proposed resource file format, and if it will work for all libraries. 
4.  Would every library want to receive the CDL records? 
5.  Can campuses do their own processing (i.e. strip out local data)? 
We will decide on a finalized list of questions at next week's meeting. 

4. CATALOGING GUIDELINES AND NARRATIVE- LAST DETAILS 
French will send a transmittal memo to SOPAG, and the Guidelines document will be 
on the TFER web site on Monday, Feb. 22. 

Hayman sent out a new draft of the Narrative on Feb. 18, and requested comments 
before 11 AM Monday, the 22nd, so she can then send it to the web master at UCD to 
put on the TFER page.  The group decided to call the Narrative "Report and 
Recommendations" for the time being. 

Sections of the report still to come are on Record Distribution and on the 
relationship between the CDL directory and Melvyl.  

5. RECORD DISTRIBUTION 
The records will be distributed in full MARC format by FTP.  

Re: Use of OCLC records 
OCLC record numbers will be in all CCA records.  For new cataloging, the CCA 
would import the OCLC records into their system and then output it to Melvyl and 
campuses. 

The fact that we are using OCLC  records, and that OCLC charges for using their 
records brought up some questions: 
1. Do we need to pay OCLC by campus? 
2. Do we need to keep our holdings on OCLC records? 
Because keeping the CDL holdings on the OCLC records would create more work for 
the CCA and is misleading for ILL purposes, UCSD has written a letter to OCLC 
requesting that OCLC not require the holdings byte. 

We still need to investigate whether there are any OCLC restrictions concerning 
copyright and resource sharing when we share records among ourselves which 
originated at OCLC. 

Re: Customizing Records 
It would be most sensible for the CCA to use their local system to create the 
CDL records, but there is concern about the Innopac fixed fields, order,  check in 
and item records, and local 920 fields, which will need to be removed by other  
libraries. 

Campuses will all receive records in USMARC format, but certain types of  
customization will be needed.  Customization such as stripping off fixed fields in  
Innopac for example, may be possible to do in different ways: through the CDL, by 
the CCA or by the receiving library. 

Records will also need to be sorted into campus-specific record sets.  There are 
two options for this process:  
1.  Separating them into subscriber files at the CCA, then sending the separate 
files to the CDL who would then outputting it to all campuses, or 
2.  Separating them and stripping the local data at CDL, who would 
then output it. 

ACTION: Graham and Doherty will investigate which way would be possible and most 
cost effective. 

Re: CDL location segment processing 

Doherty asked the group for advice on how CDL can recognize which 856 field to use 
to create the CDL Internet location segment when there is more than one 856 field 
in a record.  Should the first 856 form the basis for the CDL holdings report?  If 
yes, CDL would move the $3 to the 950 field to form the holdings statement.  This 
is a potential problem because there are frequently more than one valid 856 fields 
in records.  Sometimes there will be more than one 856 needed for the CDL access 
(such as when holdings for a title are licensed from different publishers).  JSTOR 
and Project Muse titles are an example we currently have.  We could consider  
collapsing different sources into a single CDL holdings segment and concatenate 
the $3 information into one statement.  Because the holdings segment is not a 
hotlink, users will still need to go to the URL in the bib record to access the 
site.  Would it be necessary to also add the collection names to the holdings 
statements? 

Re: Collection Development code (status code) 
Graham proposed that the collection development code is not necessary for CCA 
titles. 

ACTION: Alan will check with the chair of CDC to see if we need to include the 
collection development code in CDL records. 
  

The timeline for completion of this project is: 
Monday, Feb. 22- Report and Recommendations, Guidelines on web site 
Monday, March 1- Poll ready and out to other campuses 
Tuesday, March 29- Poll completed by other campuses 
Monday, April 5- Send results of poll to SOPAG 
Friday, April 9- Hayman and French attend SOPAG meeting to present report 
  

Our next meeting will be on Thursday Feb. 25, from 12:30 - 2:30.  
We will discuss: 
record distribution  
Karen Coyle's memo  
Graham and Doherty will report on stripping local data out of CCA records 
Bob's summary of NISO holdings standard 
Hixson's conversation with Brian Warling 

The group will revisit the Guidelines document again before the end of the comment 
period.