150 · Representative Documents: Collaborative Shelving Facility Strategies
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
WEST: Collections Model
WEST Planning Meeting June 7-‐8, 2010 Page 5
manifestation in library collections (bound issues and volumes,) and a decision-‐framework for
different levels of validation (issue or volume) and/or optimal copies.
• Improve match rates for data supplied by diverse partners from diverse systems and improve
automated holdings level analysis.
Each title category is assigned an Archive Type that reflects the level of validation (i.e. completeness and
condition check) considered appropriate for titles in that risk category. The Working Group developed
the following Archive Type designations for various validation levels: Bronze (no validation), Silver
(volume-‐level validation), and Gold (issue-‐level validation). A fourth designation, Platinum, is reserved
for special archives warranting page-‐level validation (e.g. the UC-‐JSTOR Shared Print Repository).
The relationship between Title Category-‐Archive Type provides transparency and predictability about
the level of effort that will be placed on a title with certain characteristics and keeps decision-‐making
overhead low. It would allow the libraries to calibrate the level of effort placed on certain types of titles
more effort on higher risk titles, less effort on lower risk titles. It is recommended that WEST focus on
titles at different risk levels in parallel to gain experience with the operational and cost requirements at
different levels.
The following matrix summarizes the title categories and archive types. More detail about the categories
and definitions of the archive types can be found in Appendix C: Title Categories and Appendix D:
Archive Types.
5 Ithaka S+R and Candace Yano are planning to refine the optimal copies research conducted in 2008. UC Libraries
and others will supply data about levels of validation, disclosed conditions and gaps to facilitate that research.
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
WEST: Collections Model
WEST Planning Meeting June 7-‐8, 2010 Page 5
manifestation in library collections (bound issues and volumes,) and a decision-‐framework for
different levels of validation (issue or volume) and/or optimal copies.
• Improve match rates for data supplied by diverse partners from diverse systems and improve
automated holdings level analysis.
Each title category is assigned an Archive Type that reflects the level of validation (i.e. completeness and
condition check) considered appropriate for titles in that risk category. The Working Group developed
the following Archive Type designations for various validation levels: Bronze (no validation), Silver
(volume-‐level validation), and Gold (issue-‐level validation). A fourth designation, Platinum, is reserved
for special archives warranting page-‐level validation (e.g. the UC-‐JSTOR Shared Print Repository).
The relationship between Title Category-‐Archive Type provides transparency and predictability about
the level of effort that will be placed on a title with certain characteristics and keeps decision-‐making
overhead low. It would allow the libraries to calibrate the level of effort placed on certain types of titles
more effort on higher risk titles, less effort on lower risk titles. It is recommended that WEST focus on
titles at different risk levels in parallel to gain experience with the operational and cost requirements at
different levels.
The following matrix summarizes the title categories and archive types. More detail about the categories
and definitions of the archive types can be found in Appendix C: Title Categories and Appendix D:
Archive Types.
5 Ithaka S+R and Candace Yano are planning to refine the optimal copies research conducted in 2008. UC Libraries
and others will supply data about levels of validation, disclosed conditions and gaps to facilitate that research.
