Site Contents
UCOP - LAUC - Representatives to University Advisory Bodies - Heads of Technical Services - Report for Spring Assembly 2005
May 20, 2005
TO: Terry Huwe, President, Librarians Association of the University of California
FR: Jain Fletcher, LAUC Representative to HOTS
RE: Report on Activities of the UC Heads of Technical Services, Academic Year 2004/2005
The UC Heads of Technical Services have convened for discussion several times since last year’s report was sent to LAUC. Three of the meetings were held in Oakland , including a meeting that took place on May 10, 2004 , just after last year’s report was sent to LAUC. The other two were this year’s Fall and Spring meetings, held on November 15, 2004 and April 25, 2005. However, technical services issues for the universities of California no longer appear to be containable within two meetings in an academic year. Therefore, members of HOTS scheduled extra conference calls to cover pressing issues. In 2004, calls were made on July 12, August 9, August 27, and October 14; in 2005, the calls were made on February 11 and March 18. The approved minutes for these meetings and conference calls can be found on the HOTS page (with the exception of the call of August 9, which was mostly a preparatory discussion for the August 27 call, as well as the temporary exception of the most recent meeting, whose minutes are still in preparation) at: <http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/hots/>. The following report covers just a few topics that HOTS addressed, giving a small glimpse into the workings of HOTS in the past year. I would strongly urge that all technical services staff (not to mention staff from all areas of the library) read through their minutes—there is much information to be gained from such an undertaking.
One of the topics mentioned in last year’s LAUC report--a discussion of the pros and cons of classifying e-monographs--continued to be discussed into the first few sessions of the current academic year. HOTS members were in general agreement that classifying e- monos would be useful as a further aid in the organization and access of these resources, but were concerned about the expenditure of staff time necessary for applying appropriate classifications. In their discussions, they were seeking realistic solutions that would result in sufficient classification with minimal extra effort for staff in the process. Their proposed solution was reached by the August 27 meeting, in which a HOTS draft document (a proposal to be submitted to SOPAG) was further revised, then finalized over e-mail in the next few weeks.
Another of the issues mentioned in the last LAUC report was the idea of starting an advisory (or, “common interest”) group to HOTS to deal with acquisitions-related issues. At that point, the idea was moving solidly forward, with the charge having been drafted and ideas about its potential composition being considered. Discussion continued at the meeting of May 10 (Spring 2004) meeting and over e-mail beyond that, after which the charge was finalized and its members appointed. The group is called the “Acquisitions Common Interest Group” (ACIG) and its charge and membership can be found on the HOTS page. The approval of this group came in time for many of its members to meet for the first time at ALA Annual (2004). For a report of their initial activities through September 2004, see: <http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/hots/acig/acigsopag_report20040914.pdf>. For their activities in general, click on their link on the HOTS page or go straight to: <http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/hots/acig/>.
In the course of continuing discussions about merging algorithms (needed for merging UC campus’ records into a single bibliographic record in CDL that shows all the campus’ holdings), one alternative idea was put forth as a way of avoiding the problem of programming algorithms for merging records. The idea was to use CDL as central cataloging unit for the campuses. While this idea may have a few compelling points in its favor, it is not without significant ramifications for the campuses, SRLF/NRLF holdings, catalogers, the quality of the records, CDL itself, not to mention the systems each campus may be required to use to be compliant with CDL software, etc., etc. HOTS therefore decided to investigate this issue by calling consortia around the country and asking a prepared set of questions, in order to find out whether or not their consortial holdings are cataloged centrally, and if so, how this has worked for their purposes. Discussion of this topic begins with the August 27 minutes, under the rubric, “Rethinking Melvyl” and continues as such through 2005. At the most recent HOTS meeting, however, investigation of this issue became part of the charge of the newly-formed Bibliographic Services Task Force. It is important that librarians watch the progress of this issue and remain informed about it so that they can discuss and advise administrators in a knowledge manner. So, please keep reading the HOTS minutes, as well as those for the Bibliographic Services Task Force.
The next full meeting of HOTS in Oakland will take place in Fall 2005.
Send comments regarding this site to Frank Lester, LAUC Web Manager. Last updated: