| 1 | Record: Michelle
Announcements:ERES SLACK Community Conversations - how is this being received on your campuses? Multi-part e-collections decision sent to All-Chairs for preparation to review at June 20 meeting
| Share announcements | 5 min | | Note taker: Kevin
Timekeeper: Sarah Sheets Kevin cycling off at end of June, replaced by Jeremy WhittMulti-part e-collection Decision going to All-Chairs transition team meeting with incoming chairs Licensing decision: meet with Jackie re: licensing issue isn’t direct overlap with SILS. Probably going to be a handoff to Tamara SL (CDL): Licensing issue also related to Acq, would it make sense to take it back to them given how it evolved beyond the initial scope? MP: Will run it by Acq. Also, if escalation method is generally going to be going to All Chairs, then Acq can see it there.
| | | | |
| 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 RMFG had a recommendation from phase 4 | 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. Michelle Polchow will check ELUNA archives to see if this has been addressed elsewhere. If that doesn’t help, Kevin Balster will post question to ALMA list
| | | | |
| 4 | Future deliverables Authentication/authorization protocols | Deliverable - | 20 min | Carla Arbagey Sarah Lindsey | authentication/authorization: largely managed by IT UCR waiting on approval for OpenAthens UCD has some resources configured for SSO login Possible problem with single sign on managed by campus - other units on campus can effect Library access Also issue with longevity of IP authentication given future browser updates that may obscure IP addresses. MP: Current issues with IP authentication include lack of support for IPv6 SSO can be incredibly time consuming to setup - process varies for every platform. OpenAthens SL (CDL): how does OpenAthens work with walk-ins? OpenAthens likely passes on limited user data (just confirming a user is affiliated with a campus) ALA source on future of authentication JK: only implemented SSO in a few cases where necessary. Lots of time involved. Worrying to do it more broadly, but want to get ahead of it since providers offer SSO to users who may get caught not being able to use it. JP: we have signed licenses where providers guarantee access, but if they switch to a method that is untenable, then would be a breach cases of providers switching to SSO only
| | | | |