> . . . I don't personally have a sense of how
> well it's working . . .
It *can* go wrong -- as it has in certain respects, on
a national level, in the country where I worked ( just
to the north of this one ). The lesson is that carefully
constructed and solid, and reliably monitored,
agreements are by no means a luxury.
- Laval Hunsucker
Knokke-Heist, België
----- Original Message ----
From: Jonathan Rochkind <rochkind_at_JHU.EDU>
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 6:39:00 PM
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] CSU library finds 40% of collection hasn't circulated
KLINGLER, THOMAS wrote:
> have designed decision processes to move the paper to the recycle bin, the
>depository, or elsewhere based on state-wide principles of weeding/retention.
>
That's the important part. It _is_ important, at least I think so, collectively,
that some library somewhere (and ideally more than one) keep paper copies of
stuff like this -- stuff we have online, stuff nobody ever looks at, etc.
But it's _not_ neccesary for _every_ library to keep a duplicate copy of the
same thing that nobody ever actually uses.
Cross-library state-wide or what have you arrangements to make sure _somebody's_
keeping it are the way to go. I know there's been lots of talk and planning
around that over the past few years, I don't personally have a sense of how well
it's working, because it's not my area of work.
Jonathan
>
Received on Sat Oct 09 2010 - 10:34:13 EDT