[Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
Doug Way
wayd at gvsu.edu
Mon Oct 22 17:12:14 EDT 2012
I was under this assumption, as well. I thought we had agreed up on fifteen years. If we did it for five years then libraries would essentially be obligated to remain in the group when we refreshed the data. The fifteen year agreement gave libraries the confidence to withdraw books, while also giving libraries the opportunity to opt out of the next round of data-refreshing, if they wanted (they were just committing to retain books for the longer period of time). If I am misremembering, please let me know.
doug
From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Barbara J Cockrell
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 12:15 PM
To: Pamela A. Grudzien; mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Cc: Max Eckard; Amie S. Pifer
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
Oh - I'm sorry that escaped me. I figured that the CMU date was a typo when I went back to look at it. I should have checked with you.
I had assumed that we would put the full 15 years in and that we would change the records of any reassigned records when that happened.
Barbara
Dr Barbara Cockrell,
Associate Dean for Collections & Technical Services,
University Libraries,
Western Michigan University,
1903, W. Michigan Ave,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5353
phone 269-387-5143
fax 269-387-5077
'University Libraries: a recognized essential partner in enriching and elevating all aspects of scholarship at WMU'
________________________________
From: "Pamela A. Grudzien" <grudz1pa at cmich.edu>
To: "Doug Way" <wayd at gvsu.edu>, "Barbara J Cockrell" <barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu>, mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Cc: "Max Eckard" <eckardm at gvsu.edu>, "Amie S. Pifer" <pifer1as at cmich.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:55:49 AM
Subject: RE: [Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
Sorry, correction needed. I went back into my notes from the 9 March MI SPI meeting and we talked about a 5 year retention. So, should the date be 2017/12/31? That is the notation I have on my OPAC examples discussed at the August meeting.
Pamela
Pamela Grudzien
Head of Technical Services
Central Michigan University Voice: 989-774-6422
310A Park Library Fax: 989-774-2145
250 East Preston Street Email:
Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 Grudz1pa at cmich.edu<mailto:Grudz1pa at cmich.edu>
From: Grudzien, Pamela A.
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:22 AM
To: 'Doug Way'; Barbara J Cockrell; mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Cc: Max Eckard
Subject: RE: [Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
Hello all,
We are getting ready to update the 583 for our retention titles. I want to make sure we are on the same page about the date.
We’re fine with the yyyy/mm/dd format. But, I’m not clear on the actual date to use.
My recollection is that we have agreed to a commitment to the group for 15 years. I thought I remembered that we agreed on a three year retention date with the idea that we’d add in more titles/collections and refresh the data within three years and the retention titles would change at that point.
So, instead of December 31, 2027, the field would read December 31, 2015.
Please let me know your reaction to this. We’re poised to do the updating and want to get it right the first time.
Thanks all!
Pamela
Pamela Grudzien
Head of Technical Services
Central Michigan University Voice: 989-774-6422
310A Park Library Fax: 989-774-2145
250 East Preston Street Email:
Mount Pleasant, MI 48859 Grudz1pa at cmich.edu<mailto:Grudz1pa at cmich.edu>
From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org> [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Doug Way
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Barbara J Cockrell; mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
Cc: Max Eckard
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
Hello, everyone,
Our metadata librarian has looked at this. He felt we should use the yyyymmdd instead of the spelled-out date. That was really the only major concern he had.
Doug
From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org> [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Barbara J Cockrell
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 4:22 PM
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
Subject: [Mcls-print-storage] 583 Preservation note follow up
All,
Following the MI-SPI meeting I have been discussing the 583 note with our head of cataloging. We also contacted LizAnne Payne, one of the co-authors of the OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Report (2012) https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1iM86_QRG0vBXqlRwezIA2pOANJdIqmlAnSS_t31WgNU#h.mk9cgtg7e10a for additional clarification. The most relevant information is in the figures and Attachment 3 of that document. LizAnne also discussed this in her co-presention with Constance Malpus on Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print Management in the same June ALCTS Webinar series as we did with SCS http://downloads.alcts.ala.org/ce/06052012_ACprecon_shared_collections_bibliographic_slides.pdf (slides 40 & 41in particular).
Based on these documents and LizAnne’s e-mail clarification here is what WMU thinks we should put in the 583 retention note:
583_1 $a committed to retain $d December 31, 2027 $f MI-SPI $u www.link<http://www.link> to our MOU
This is essentially the same combination of fields that was discussed at MI-SPI, a little more fleshed out than CMU’s example but not overly complex.
Explanation:
583 1 public view indicator (for public display)
$a action term. Committed to retain is shown in $a in the Print Archives Disclosure Report and in Payne’s slide 40 of Bibliographic Infrastructure for Shared Print power point. LizAnne told us “In the final report and recommendation we settled on "Committed to retain" in the 583 $a. I believe you are correct that the $2 pda should not be included because this is not yet an officially approved term so but the intention is to get "committed to retain" added to the PDA list.” According to the PDA Actions: Terminology document http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/pda.pdf the closest crrent standardized terminology would be Retained.
$d action interval. Interpreted to mean the date commitment expires (Payne, Shared Print Management power point and OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Report). Could be expressed YYYYMMDD for consistency with $c and machine readability or December 31, 2027 for easier legibility (see examples in OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Report and PDA Actions: Terminology document http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/pda.pdf )
$f Authorization. Used for Archiving program by Payne and OCLC Print Archives disclosure report figs.1 & 2. MI-SPI
$u www.link<http://www.link> to agreement (see OCLC Print Archives Disclosure Report)
I'm all for you sharing this suggestion with catalogers and others at your institutions who may want to weigh in. We should certainly think about pros and cons on the date display $d
Barbara
Dr Barbara Cockrell,
Associate Dean for Collections & Technical Services,
University Libraries,
Western Michigan University,
1903, W. Michigan Ave,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5353
phone 269-387-5143
fax 269-387-5077
'University Libraries: a recognized essential partner in enriching and elevating all aspects of scholarship at WMU'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20121022/915f45b4/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Mcls-print-storage
mailing list