| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions |
|---|
| 1 | Check-in / updates | Information sharing and problem-solving | 5 | All | AEFG: Continued progress on Import Profiles related MVP item, in collaboration with RMFG. Continued progress on initial E-Res-related MVP items related to linking between CDL/NZ and IZ activity for consortial resources, and how to start workflows for local e-resource ordering. Pending request for ExL special meeting re: advanced invoicing topics, tax handling, etc. Fulfillment: Working on configuring NCIP so we can test. Testing manual patron blocks and the effects they have on AFN borrowing. Working on recommendations for required patron data fields based on our experience trying to pull in user records from other UCs. DCFG: Hit a roadblock trying to ingest from OAC, so we’re scheduling an appointment with ExL to help us troubleshoot. In April, we will focus on ingesting records from Calisphere and local repositories. | | |
| 2 | Decisions | Discuss and approve proposed decisions A list of standardized tags 15 | 30 | | (Go-live and beyond) Migrating/managing local Open Access (OA) bibliographic records post-migration, campuses should add the 506 field for OA records (not required but strongly encouraged). Required wording for that field has been created so that the “unlocked” icon will display.
(Go-live) Local 856 bibliographic data Request that campuses copy data in 856 fields to 956 fields; RMFG will request that CDL remove 856 40 fields soon after 8/15 and 856 41 fields beginning 9/15 Rules would be created to be run against data to remove it.
Hold this decision for now until AEFG has a chance to review and add to it.
Can we review this PPC page: (Vanguard and Test Load) Preparation of Campus SCP Data Make a new page, revise and bring back to next PPC meeting
Who should be responsible for naming the AFN functionality, FFFG or DFG?
| Link any OA decisions to PSELG’s OA decision page Approved (Liz will add tags, Beth will link to OA page) Hold this decision for now until AEFG can review and add to it next week. Liz M to revise, create a new page, and bring back to next PPC meeting Discovery will label in consultation with FFFG
| |
| 3 | Test Load | When can we share the document Collaborative Workflow Testing and with whom (cohort and beyond)? Scheduling the work, especially those needing cross-FG coordination | 1015 | All | Collaborative Workflow Testing Focus on migration decisions first and workflow decisions second. Migration decisions should be made by end of April. Check back on this and MVP document in April. PPC should confirm all priority 1 - set by the end of March. Can be shared with cohort. Available in the PPC folder. Confirm FGs will be using the timeline / spreadsheet for scheduling testing and cross-FG coordination.
| Not a replacement for MVP, just a method of tracking and ensuring that anyone who may have a stake in this is involved | 5- Christine Barone (Unlicensed) ask Marci about why workflows need to be completed by end of May? Are there dependencies with the project that dictate that timeframe? Please clarify.
| 4 | Topics for next week’s cohort chairs meeting | CDI: There are two model: Easy Active and Fully Flexible OCLC: Decide how to facilitate the conversation at cohort chairs meeting | 35 | All | CDI Want to get a better understanding of the pros and cons of EasyActive v. FullyFlexible, especially its impact on end users. Discovery: their understanding is that from the patron perspective, campuses can do what they currently do with the PCI and limit the data that’s visible (i.e. eliminating everything that is not full text). UCI does not limit by availability and would need to use the facet to limit the search. DFG asked ExL about the difference between EasyActive and FullyFlexible. EasyActive leaves the metadata available to search and the ability to limit by availability. Without limiting by availability, end user could experience numerous results which would be overwhelming Here is what Marci said on Basecamp: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/messages/3398528891 "The roadmap of CDI product development is all new ALMA customers should be on EasyActive model. Fullyflexible model is a transitional model for PCI customers to move CDI, and eventually they will move to EasyActive model in the future" (Note: it is possible to move from FullyFlexible to EasyActive, but not from EasyActive to FullyFlexible) Focus should be on the impact on end users over work - unless amount of work is really tremendous How could we present this topic at SILS Chairs?
OCLC Impossible to process large packages in OCLC. Davis addressed this by adding records to the CZ Are people worried about records in the NZ that lack an OCLC #? RMFG will lead this discussion
| - Jess Waggoner to send a couple of sentences about CDI to shape the discussion
- Elizabeth Miraglia to send a couple of sentences about CDI to shape the discussion
| - share with ICs in case there is anything of value here for them. Not to be shared beyond cohort; not for local testers
|
| 4 | CDI | Review of actions from 3/24 SILS Chairs | 10 | All | PPC to draft questions for sending to the Alma consortia list to see what flavor of CDI they are using and what their experience has been. PPC to draft timeline for CDI (EA v FF) investigation so we don’t run out of time for making a decision. See update from PMs Q to Marci about this: [Q to Marci] Based on Marina’s response to our question about CDI models, UCs understand themselves to have a choice about whether they will use the FF or EA model for production (understanding that right now test load is set up to be EA). If UCs decide they want the FF model, what is the timeline for making that decision? [Marci’s response so far] Sent to Marina for follow-up (she already sent message to Product Management and Development). Will update you when we have more info.
DFG: UCSC will test to gather data on EA expand box vs. PCI FF, user experience, and how many records come through. It’s not quite an apples to apples comparison, but will bring data back to DFG. DFG will gather data this week to discuss
| | |
| 5 | CDL Managed Services | Feedback on draft list of CDL managed services Is this the right level of detail? Too much, too little, just right? What is the primary goal in having us create this list? To have a document to refer to when questions come up? To allay concerns about who will manage what? What else do you want us to know about what you are hoping to get out of this document?
| 30 | Sarah | This document is a starting point; it is a living document As information is filled in, some areas may indicate that the answer is not yet known. This is an honest answer since so much is new and is still unknown. The SSM will be the one-stop shop to ask questions of PPC makes policies, but not sure who will do the work, e.g., MARCIVE records that need to be loaded into the NZ. Who will do this work? CDL is spread across two locations and multiple areas. CDL not configured like a central office. Knowing who will do what is not always known. Q: Ultimately, who will manage and maintain the NZ? Short answer: This will be done in conjunction with shared governance. CDL will continue to flesh out the document. Sarah H. will act as point person/contact if questions or issues arise in PPC. One issue that needs immediate attention is MARCIVE records.
| | |
| 6 | PM Update | Awareness of what’s happening / coming soon in the project | 0 | Christine | Meetings: List of meetings on Basecamp Mon Mar 22: Using OCLC with Alma - UC-led meeting Thu Mar 25: Fiscal Close - UC-led meeting For Fiscal close meeting - we want to test how you can set a grace period on outgoing fiscal year - and add internal invoices there, etc.) | 6 | Homework | 7 | Parking Lot | April: Revisit MVP and Collaborative Workflow Testing | | |
| 7 | Homework | | | | | | |
| 8 | Parking Lot | | | | Future meeting: AEFG questions that came up were re: coordination of Analytics (cross-function?) and... how the Selector role in Alma is changing (people will care, prob fits w/ AEFG, but overloads us....)
For future meeting: CDL shared services In progress | | |
| 89 | | TOTAL | 7090/90 | | | | |