| 3 | SILS Operations Team
Jackie Gosselar
Thomas Bustos
| Discuss escalation of
multi-part e-collections decision | TB: what’s expectation for OT?
MP: not the best group to determine best practices for discovery/presentation of e-resource collections. We could help out on the back-end.
SL (SC): Topics flagged for ERES seem more like multi-group topics, can’t be the sole deciders
JG: lots of different FGs implicated. Would help if potential pathways are presented.
JP: overview of original proposal that got sent to ERES and survey that was sent out on various models. Feedback from survey isn’t actionable as-is
JG: In Discovery, focusing on functionality, not specifically on wayfinding for e-resources
TB: what happens if a topic comes up that we don’t have coverage in? OT had trouble determining who this proposal would actually go to. Possible to escalate to All Chairs
MP: Need to have input from staff responsible for local A-Z Database lists
KB: some views from SCP-AC was that there was no single model that would work, and we can’t come up with best practices ahead of time - ongoing work might be needed
MP: Also issues with new products, and vendors changing products resulting in new decisions
TB: brainstorm different OSTs to include, and consider possible routes to take, including possibility of TF
MP: We’re obviously a component, but hesitant to be the leaders on the issue.
TB: After going to All Chairs, if decision is to create TF, then that would go to OT
SL (CDL): originally dealt with collection level URLs, but those began being dealt with internally. But expanded to include technical issues. If decision is to go a particular route, then how to go about achieving the particular result? If we want to provide link to resource that’s not tied to particular collection, how to go about it? Seems like everything would be on a case-by-case basis, and need to know who to ask
JP: end goal is not a singular best practice
JG: How many affected collections?
Hard to determine clear number
JD: what does this look like to be resolved? maybe have some guiding principles in place, but most decisions likely lies with CDL
SL (CDL): from CDL perspective, might need some input on technical issues. These do come up locally for campuses. Would be interested in knowing how campuses are handling them | CRL community zone activation for member campuses | Phase 4 Recommendation - communication & follow-up | 10 min | Kevin Balster | CRL Catalog CRL Monographs CRL Newspapers CRL Open Access Monographs CRL Open Access Newspapers CRL Open Access Serials CRL Serials
After some review, I think there’s the following breakdown of resources in the various CRL CZ collections:
CRL Monographs/Newspapers/Serials (both OA and non-OA): These collections seem to contain titles that have been digitized and are available for CRL members (or everybody for the OA collections). These all contain portfolios, but aren’t indexed in the CDI. CRL Catalog: This looks to be just for titles that haven’t been digitized, so are available for members to ILL. This collection only has two portfolios, but has millions(?) of titles indexed in the CDI.
Prior to the migration RMFG had a recommendation to potentially activate the CRL Catalog collection in order to recreate the discovery environment we had for CRL resources in Melvyl. Consulted with UCLA RMCMOS rep, Hermine Vermeij, and we agreed that while this originally started as a RMFG decision, since it was dealing with CZ collections, it seemed like a question for ERES. | | | | |