Page Comparison

Implement the E-Resources/Acquisitions/Centrally Managed Licenses for Network Zone architecture
Resource: Alma Collaborative Networks

CDL initiative

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CDLNZPT

CSU Model - Shared Electronic Resources Procedures and Best Practices

930/973 fields
[Phase 4 delegated]

N/A

N/A

930/973 fields - practice for continued use

These fields are used by CDL and campuses to pull together e-resource packages. There is a need to evaluate how effective these are and whether Alma has a better alternative, including relying on on e-resource Collection Names instead

Multi-series electronic collection level records [CDL request]

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

Multi-Part E-Collections

Steering Committee: Sherry Lochhaas

CSU - Descriptive and Collection Level Records in NZ

NZ e-collection level record/ workflow to be worked out/ SCP advisory committee – Decision Page draft by Kevin 3/17/2022 start.

Sharing of E-resource Licensing Information across UC [Phase 4 delegated]

LOW

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

(check in with various parties on listservs)

Sharing of E-resource Licensing Information across UC

Steering Committee: Sherry Lochhaas

Create a shared storage space where the entire license documents for UC Tier 1-3 e-resource licenses can reside, so that we can compare terms obtained previously within the system. It would be of additional benefit to be sharing information about license negotiations that have failed and reasons why.

Licensing - AEFG Handoff Document

Licensing - terms visibility for ILL, etc.
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

starts at CDL for standards on consortial purchases, then flows to campuses for harmonization of local practices

Shared decisions around the CZ
[Phase 4 delegated]

NZ

N/A

Determine when we can make shared decisions for specific collections and/or use cases with regard to the CZ

Example from another consortia:

Closely tied to NZ/IZ de-duplication/reconciliation work. A wide range of local practices would lead to duplication of records (for any given title, some campuses might accept a CZ records while other would choose to import from OCLC, or a vendor, etc.). What level of duplication would be allowed?

Also, often not clear ahead of time whether CZ metadata is acceptable, so has impact on Acq-to-Cat workflow. If Acq chooses CZ record and Cat decides to use NZ record, it leaves a “ghost” CZ bib in the NZ (example - MMS ID: 9917241870306531)

Additional process work on NZ/IZ de-duplication/reconciliation.
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

CZ harmonization

workflow/policy/practice page

Steering Committee Contact: Sarah Sheets

need clarification on who is responsible/can work in NZ - only CDL? Largely e-res management

Feb 2023 Survey comment:
(RE: Additional process work on NZ/IZ deduplication) I think the best course of action is to create a policy/practice page that documents how activating a resource in both the NZ and IZ interacts - specifically that IZ coverage trumps NZ coverage in Primo display if it is the same portfolio in the same CZ collection. Document awareness around this issue more than performing any deduplication work at this time. ALSO, a page about how to use Analytics to reduce any local eDDA records in the IZ that are already owned in the NZ - ask Lisa Wong for this report (RE: Confirm approach to scoping of IP ranges for discovery outcomes) I think this can be safely delegated to Discovery.

CDL/Campus E-Resources Workflow/Record Structure - AEFG (Go-Live) Electronic Resources Practices - Linking IZ orders to relevant CDL e-collections (MVP 001) and AEFG (Go-Live) Campus Purchase Order Practices for CDL and Related Local E-Resources (AEFG-MVP-002)
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

waiting on input from CDL for what they need campuses to adhere to

CDL/Campus E-Resources Workflow/Record Structure - AEFG Handoff Document

CSU ACQ ERM Workflow (local) visual model

CSU ERM Best Practices and Procedures

Reporting/analytics - define desired statewide reports
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

Stakeholders: selectors , AULs/ULs, others? SCLG for input on local vs UC, campus reports into Shared space in Analytics (esp already-Alma campuses). Reports NOT in analytics?

need input from stakeholders (Operations Team?) on what kinds of reports are needed so we can see if current data entry is providing needed connections for effective reports

Reporting/Analytics - AEFG Handoff Document (applies to all Analytics topics from Phase 4)

CSU Helpful Alma Repository Searche Queries

Reporting/analytics - System review/improvement processes - show and tell?
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

Reporting/Analytics - AEFG Handoff Document (applies to all Analytics topics from Phase 4)

Reporting/Analytics - Shared Vendors vs harmonized vendor codes for consortia-level spending reporting
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

Low

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

“How much does UC spend with VendorX?”

Reporting/Analytics - AEFG Handoff Document (applies to all Analytics topics from Phase 4)

Confirm approach to scoping of IP ranges for discovery outcomes (more Discovery but affects e-resources troubleshooting)
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

status gathering?/ local practices/delegate to discovery?

settings that can be configured during Acq process, but largely e-res/Discovery

Perpetual rights and entitlement tracking in Alma (generally)
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

• current functions in CZ/CDI/Primo

• local practices/workflows

• changes in provider and ecollection

Perpetual Access

Steering Committee Contact: Sherry Lochhaas

joint w/ e-res, both local and CDL materials.

CRKN consortia perpetual access tracking project - tool forthcoming

NASIG Digital Preservation Webinar: Integrating Preservation into Librarian Workflows

Local E-resources practices chat/clearing house

• CKG?

E-resources troubleshooting communication

• Slack

• more baseline communication rules?

Steering Committee Contact: Michelle Polchow

Authentication/authorization protocols

Steering Committee Contact: Michelle Polchow