| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | | |
|---|
| 1 | Record: Michelle
Announcements:Multi-part e-collections decision sent to All-Chairs for preparation to review at June 20 meeting Alma enhancement final voting has started
vote is June 24
| Share announcements | 5 min | | 3Note taker: Kevin
Timekeeper: Sarah Sheets Multi-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.
| 2 | CDL announcements | NZ Task Force or other activities | 10 min | Sherry Lochhaas | | | | | | |
| 2 | CDL announcements | NZ Task Force or other activities | 10 min | Sherry Lochhaas | | | | | |
| 3 | UCOP Update | DDA and update to FY23 survey | 10 min | Sarah Sheets | annual statistics group looking at DDA. some campuses prefer to count DDA, but some don’t. At the moment, prototype will have total count, with separate column for DDA, but still working on it. ILL data will remain under purview of campuses. same with Spec. Coll. MP: will streaming media DDA be counted? Is anybody using Alma software specifically designed for managing DDA? SL (CDL): be aware that CDL has several purchased collections with “DDA” in the title. Also be aware that if we’re excluding unpurchased titles, then we do have collections that don’t have perpetual access, not just DDA. SL (SC): it would be great if UCOP could be empowered to just tell us what to count. what happens if each campus takes a different approach for counting or not counting DDA? How does it affect numbers compared to other campuses? SS: Trying to nudge UCOP in certain directions SS: looks like it’s coming from the top-down, so campuses won’t independently be reporting numbers. MP: concerns with how numbers are calculated. need to make sure campuses are able to verify numbers. SL (SC): group has been in close touch with campuses to make sure they can generate accurate counts, tailored to each campus
SS: prototype looks nothing like previous versions.
| | | | |
| 4 | ERES Deliverables update Multi-part e-collections decision sent to All-Chairs for preparation to review at June 20 meeting Sharing of E-Resources Licensing across UC | | | | MP: group called CDL licensing liaisons, but not a policy or process group. Looks like not an established group, just a list of people who handle licensing at each campus CA: worth it to see if the desire for the licensing solution is still wanted? JP: tried to address some philosophical questions in decision doc about needs/benefits for some licensing cooperation & coordination. SL (CDL): CDL will have more capacity once licensing position is filled
| | | | |
| 5 | 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 | | | | |
| 6 | 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
| 5CA: not looking good between OpenAthens and campus IT folks SL (SC): working on proposal. excited to potentially get rid of EZproxy and VPN MP: library IT has worked with campus IT on dozens of Shibboleth integrations. Oxford migration in July last year broke their SSO, and couldn’t get any traction from campus IT until recently. SL (SC): Ebsco claims that they become the intermediary for setting up SSO
| | | | |
| 7 | Wrap Up Summer Calendar - | Review actions and decisions Decision regarding continued weekly meetings/ bi-weekly No meeting - week of 7/6 | 10 min | | | | | | |
| 68 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion: | | |
| | | | |
| 79 | | Total | 60/60 | | | | | | |