PRESENT: Susan Bell, Zora Breeding, Sue Davis, Peg Earheart, Sylvia Martin, Monica Sanchez, Mary Ellen Wilson

UPDATE: OS/CAT: Mary Ellen and Zora gave a brief report on the Cat/Auth meeting that Mary Ellen attended. Mary Ellen distributed an organization chart of OS. Various options for improving communication and understanding between the 2 teams were discussed. The possibility of having a regular quarterly joint meeting of the 2 teams was suggested, with the first meeting to be held in May.

UPDATE: BNA SHELF-READY: Sylvia reported that she is in the process of filling out profiles for both PromptCat and physical processing for BNA approval books in designated subject areas. She is working with Mary Ellen, BNA and Solinet.

UPDATE: OFFLINE RETURN: Sylvia noted that she is working with Nancy and Solinet to complete the profile for batch loading of records to set our holdings. When the process is complete, we will then submit a sample batch of inventory records for test.

EDUCATION PERIODICAL USE STUDY: Mary Ellen reported that Education is creating items for unbound issues as a means of determining use. Because OS was not aware of this procedure, receivers were confused when it appeared that volumes were already bound. Peggy's Maintenance staff will have to delete unused bar codes when the issues are actually bound. ACTION: Education's routine is not really a problem, but it would have been nice to know about it in advance. Sylvia will check with Mary Beth Blalock to see how long this project will last.

EVALUATION OF SHELF-READY APPROVALS: The document outlining an evaluative process for shelf-ready approvals was again discussed. Mary Ellen expressed some concerns about the suggested methodology, e.g. how to separate group 2 from group 3 since these materials are all processed at the same time. These 2 groups would also be received on mixed invoices, adding to processing time rather than decreasing it. Can BNA separate the subject areas decided upon for Group 2? It was pointed out that there would be "value added services" for these 2 groups and that some sort of flag or note should call attention to this fact. There was also concern about how to keep statistics on new material being added and how to code for LU or LM. A suggestion was made to perhaps keep track of only two groups - those going to the libraries from PromptCat as shelf-ready and those being received and processed in OS without a review process. ACTION: Sylvia will relate the above discussion to Flo. She will also check with BNA to see if Group 2 can be categorized separately.

NEXT MEETING: Wed., May 12, 2:00, Baker