...
| Page Properties | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Recommendation
...
|
Recommendation
Harmonization undesirable. Each campus should make the decision based upon their collection and user needs).
Impact
...
Stakeholder group
...
Impact
...
Who does this decision affect? [name of the group]
...
Explain the significance of the decision to EACH stakeholder group. How will this decision impact this particular group? What will change? Do they need to take any action? If so, when?
...
ILL
...
...
eResources
...
Reasoning
Background
Prior to the migration to a consortium, campuses were able to curate their CDI collections. While this required them to turn on access to individual collections, it also allowed them to weed out collections with poor metadata.
...
How exactly does this impact ILL?
How would they test this?
?
There was no good option with easy active vs fully flexible. There were pros and cons on both sides. Easy active was less work on the catalog side of things.
Consider that the whole point of this shared catalog thing was to get everything accessible by the UCs into one bucket for people to discover, even if it’s not currently on the shelf or subscribed to. An increased ILL Workload is definitely going to be a part of that.
What options do we have on the Discovery side to reduce the number of “bad” requests coming from inaccurate metadata records?
...