Minutes : Acquisitions/Serials Committee Meeting 25 June 1998 @ Kings Present: Kevin MacNeil (SFX) (Co-Chair) Susan Cameron (SFX) (Co-Chair) Linda Aiken (DALLAW) David Manning (SMU) Paulette Drisdelle (KINGS) Terri Winchcombe (DALTECH) Helen Blanchard (MSVU) Gail Fraser (DALWKK) (Acting Secretary) Linda MacLeod (DALKIL) Lai Hsiung (DALKIL) Karen Chandler (DALKIL) Bill Birdsall (Novanet) (guest) Mary MacDonald (DALWKK) Scott Nickerson (Novanet) (guest) Regrets: Nick Sobol (UCCB), Peter Glenister (MSVU) The meeting commenced at approximately 1 pm with KM introducing BB as new Executive Director of Novanet, wishing him well in the position and welcoming him to the meeting. 1. The agenda was approved with the addition of an information sheet from LH regarding microfiche check-in and new acquisitions procedures at Killam using Geocat. 2. The minutes of the last meeting (19 Feb 1998) were approved, LM moving and TW seconding. 3. New Chair/co-chairs. KM said no nominations had been received. Several people at the meeting were then asked if they would be willing to step into the position, but all declined, chiefly because time/staff shortages made it impossible for them to accept the responsibility. KM said that if no one offered, it would be up to Management to make a decision. KM and SC said it was unlikely that they would be on the ACQ/SER committee next year, but that someone from SFX Technical Services would serve on the committee. MM suggested that the Executive Committee call a meeting of the ACQ/SER committee in the fall (after members have had time to go away & consider matters) to discuss the position and try to decide on a new chair or co-chairs at that time. 4.1. Serials checkin web page. A copy of this page was circulated for members to make changes or additions to their email addresses, etc. This page can be seen from the Novanet Acquisitions Committee homepage. 4.2. Handling of serials with multimedia supplements. There was a general discussion of what different libraries do with the CD-ROMS, audio cassettes, etc. that come with journal issues. It seems that most of these types of supplements are kept behind the CIRC desk, with notes both on the journal issue and on the supplementary item saying where the item is and what issue it came with. SC wondered whether it is practical to have a Committee policy for dealing with these items, or if the Committee wants to develop guidelines which leave room for individual institution decisions. Besides the checking in and processing of this type of material, it was also noted that Acquisitions staff now have to be much more savvy about electronic journals, licensing, full-text availability, registering passwords, etc and that Acquisitions has become much more complicated as a result. There is also a stronger link now between Acquisitions and Systems. After further discussion, it was recommended that in the near future, an Acquisitions Task Force be struck to consider the implications of and methods of dealing with multimedia/electronic materials, as this is an area in which the expertise of Acquisitions staff will be more and more called upon in the future. Liaison with the ITAG and EPIC committees was proposed (committee member PG is a member of EPIC). DM suggested we wait until the libraries have had time to document their procedures before going ahead with the proposed Task Force. 4.3 Electronic purchase orders. Scott had not yet arrived, and committee members did not know how far along plans for the electronic purchase orders had gotten. Several libraries mentioned that Coutts is ready to receive EPO's, and that this service is working for the Agricultural College in Truro. It was thought that the true BISAC ordering, which was tested with Midwest, was still in the hands of GEAC to fix the glitch that was preventing it from working. The other unwieldy thing about BISAC ordering was that the purchase orders would go from 10 characters in length to 14 (eg: 9800005987/0001, 9800005987/0002, etc) as all orders sent at once would be attached to the one main p.o. number. DM wondered if the BISAC orders were AUTH rather than CUT, would they all get separate p.o. numbers? The committee agreed to continue to press for electronic ordering as our top priority item at this time. 4.4 Cancellation letter printing. At the last meeting when these were discussed, most libraries said they did not use them because they only came once a week. Interest was expressed at that time in being able to print the cancellation letters immediately (an option would have to be added to the appropriate screen). SC thought she had seen this option briefly after last meeting and wondered whether Scott had been testing it. This item was also put aside to discuss with Scott when he came. 5.1 Year 2000 Compliance. KM told us about a Committee of Chairs meeting at which year 2000 compliance was discussed. We believe that Novanet staff has the over-all responsibility for ensuring that the Novanet system is compliant. The Committee would like to make special mention of the Acquisitions/Serials reports however. Many of them were written by Novanet staff, and some seem to have only two digits in the date. ***SCOTT: PLEASE CHECK ALL THE ACQ/SER REPORTS FOR YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE. THANKS. 5.2 Geoweb and the Serials Summary Holdings display. Having a serials summary holdings display in Geopac was seen as an improvement over no display at all! There were a number of comments about the inadequacy of the current display. TW thought this might be as good as it gets in the version we are now using. SC commented that there did not seem to be much discussion between OPAC and ACQ/SER on this topic. Several committee members said that they had discussed their concerns with the OPAC rep in their individual libraries. SC wondered if the committee wanted to send a formal note detailing our concerns, but members felt that Novanet (Scott) and the OPAC people were already aware of the problems in this area. 6. Lai Hsuing handed around a sheet explaining DALKIL's procedures for: Insertion of boxes for checkin of microfiche issues, and New acquisitions procedures for DALKIL using Geocat. After members read it, and LH talked for a few minutes, there was a general discussion about checking in microfiche issues, and several people mentioned how much they are looking forward to the next version of Advance, in which we will all have discrete serials checkins. Re: Geocat, LH explained that they are getting a high rate of hits, and that retrieval of a full marc record before ordering has cut down on the number of duplicates ordered, and provides better records for patrons to search. DALKIL will not require the marc request service when it becomes available again from NLC. GF asked whether it was cataloguers or Acq staff searching & retrieving from Geocat. LM replied that all members of the monograph unit search, retrieve, place orders, receive books, and catalogue them (if LC copy available). [Scott arrives] Other new business: DM noted that the on-going problem of the wrong address sometimes coming up on serial claims has not been fixed. MM suspects that the Item due report and Expected issue report are not working properly (some things not showing up that she thinks should). Scott asked for a list of lcn's so he can investigate. PD raised the question of consortial buying --was it being done or considered? KM & SC said it had come up at Collections Development Committee meetings (shared purchase of ABI Inform, for example). BB said that so far the experience has been that not enough universities are interested (or can afford) the shared subscriptions/licenses for a single product to make consortial buying feasible. [Note: Goal 6 in the Novanet Plan for 1997-1999 is to "Investigate cost sharing initiatives" . It states that all committees are responsible for investigating & reporting to the Executive Director of Novanet possible options for cost sharing as they arise.] Scott was asked about the progress of Electronic purchase orders. There has been essentially no progress. Frustration was expressed by committee members regarding the continued non-availability of this high priority Committee request. Scott pointed out that he was the only person in the office at this time with any programming experience and that every committee and library had projects they wanted done. He suggested that the projects will have to be prioritized (at Committee of Chairs meeting??). NOTE: it was advised that the Committee should prepare an Impact Statement (ie, budgetary, staff, etc consequences of having/not having this service) in order to make a convincing argument in favour of it. Scott was asked about the cancellation letter option. He suggested that it also be put in the queue of requests, as nothing had been done about it to date. For the benefit of anyone considering taking on the responsibilities of the Chair/co-chairs for the next term, LA asked the present co-chairs what the duties/expectations of the Chair are for the next two years, and are we/they aware of any special business coming up? SC/KM replied: -2-4 meetings/year -Geopac implementation (serials holdings display) -Task Force to look at electronic/multimedia serials -- ordering, system requirements, licensing, legal responsibility, etc. -Electronic ordering -next release of Advance (summer 1999?). Scott does not think there will be anything for committee to do to prepare for this. -SC suggested possibly reviewing the code table decisions now that we have been using Advance for awhile. Meeting adjourned at 2:40. SC/KM said farewells and thanked members for their committee work and for their support.