LKR Policy Task Group Minutes

September 13, 2005

Steve began by outlining a suggested procedure for continuing the committee's work. First, we would today give updates of what we had learned about the LKR function and using it since the last meeting, discuss our findings, and then plan on individual assignments for writing up our findings and submitting them for inclusion in a final report. The members agreed on this approach.

 

Todd reported that he had found the LKR function to be extremely useful in cleaning up monographic series problems, giving several examples of the value of such a technique over earlier methods, and noting what a big improvement it was. There was some discussion over what the form of the public side field labels should be when the LKR function is used, and whether some of them could be locally reworded for better clarity, or were system required as they were. Jimmie said she had been and would be in contact with Daniel Cromwell at FCLA on this question, and would keep us updated on what she learned. There was discussion about whether the words "uplink" and "downlink" are the best choices, or whether other terminology could be better. It was noted that the scope of using the LKR function was practically unlimited, whether for parent/subissue items, variant formats of titles, for earlier and later editions, etc., and that our eventual report and ALEPHPRO procedure should precisely define how LKR would be used locally.

 

Hank then discussed use of LKR for linking items and related collections in the Belknap Collection, as well as the potential of LKR in other linking situations. Steve commented that the work the committee would be doing was largely groundbreaking, as research had indicated that very little documentation on the description and use of LKR had been made available on the web or elsewhere, even by Ex Libris.  

 

Steve then suggested that at this time the members write up their findings, Todd for LKR use in serials, Hank for Special Collections, and Jimmie and Steve for remaining areas, and submit these findings to Steve. Steve would then consolidate these into an initial draft report, which could then be circulated among the members for further comment.

Additional committee meetings would then be held if judged necessary for finalizing the report. Steve noted that once the report had been prepared and submitted, derivation of an LKR procedure for ALEPHPRO from the report would likely follow soon after.

 

The meeting was then adjourned, with the members to submit their written "subreports"

to Steve within the next one to two weeks.