Page Comparison

930/973 fields
[Phase 4 delegated]

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

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

(check in with various parties on listservs)

Sharing of E-resource Licensing Information across UC

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

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 rights and entitlement tracking in Alma DRAFT

Contact: Michelle Polchow

joint w/ ACQ, both local and CDL materials.

CRKN consortia perpetual access tracking project - tool forthcoming

NASIG Digital Preservation Webinar: Integrating Preservation into Librarian Workflows

• document how IZ coverage trumps NZ coverage in some cases

• separate from a comprehensive tracking project at each campus or for consortial e-resources

Local E-resources practices chat/clearing house

Regular check in between campus representatives

• CKG?

https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/l/cp/EDXa1bRs

Contact: Jeremy Whitt

SILS Community Slack - ERES channel

Is this covered? Or do we want a central repository for examples of local practices – RM or CMCKG had a discussion about this topic.

Can this be combined with “E-resources troubleshooting communication” or do they warrant separate pages?

Post-go-live CRL records in Primo

ExLibris/CRL support

CRL records in Alma/Primo (DRAFT)

RMFG had a recommendation from phase 4

Contact: Tamara Pilko

Post-go-live migration handoff misplaced assigning this deliverable to SILS. UCLA troubleshooting identified CRL content missing June 2023.

Multi-series electronic collection level records [CDL request]

RM

DISC

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

Multi-Part E-Collections

Contact: Paula Pascual - consulting with Liz Miraglia and Caitlin Nelson about next steps

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.

Authentication/authorization protocols

17 Aug 2023

Authentication methods (DRAFT)

Contact: Tamara Pilko

Document current authentication practices at UC campuses. Track discussion around this topic

E-resources troubleshooting communication

• Slack

• more baseline communication rules?

E-resources troubleshooting communication DRAFT

Contact: Jeremy Whitt

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?

Scoping of IP Ranges DRAFT

Contact: Carla Arbagey

Need to clarify what the task is for us. Previous ERES convos suggested that it is ambiguous whether this setting is needed and where the decision lies (ERES v DISC)

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

Review previous Phase decision pages

AEFG Decisions

https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/P4D

Review previous Phase decision pages to determine what is still relevant and needs to be included in SILS Documentation Center (copy over to ER space and label as “current” “pnp”)

Title Transfers

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

Reinstate journal title transfer support that CDL offered a few years ago, so campuses know when a title moves from one publisher to another and if new access is included in Tier 1, 2 or 3 licensing agreements. Record keeping and confirmed access for backfile - IZ vs NZ.

Need to clarify goal - is this compiling feedback for CDL page or documenting local practice or other?

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]

SC will review/revise based on work from CDLNZ-PT and Shared Collections

NZ

[SOT-CDL Capacity]

waiting on input from CDL for what they need campuses to adhere toPaused pending results of CDLNZ-PT and CDL Shared Collections work with ExLibris consultant

CDL/Campus E-Resources Workflow/Record Structure - AEFG Handoff Document
CSU ACQ ERM Workflow (local) visual model

CSU ERM Best Practices and Procedures → Shared e-Resources - Consortial Acquisitions

CDLNZ-PT Testing Documents and Results on SILS GDrive

Reporting/Analytics - “How much does UC spend with VendorX?”
[Phase 4 re-delegated from ACQ]

NZ

Contact: Tamara Pilko

Tamara will review if this belongs with ACQ or outside SILS

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

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

SC will review/revise (split?)

NZ

CZ harmonization

Best Practice for activating a CZ portfolio in both NZ and IZ (DRAFT)

Identifying CZ records in an IZ that are also activated in NZ (DRAFT)

Contact: Tamara Pilko

create 2 policy/practice pages about activating a CZ portfolio in both IZ and NZ - 1 about IZ/NZ coverage interaction and 2 about identifying duplicate activation using Analytics

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.