| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Local group takeaways | Actions | | |
|---|
| 1 | Updates (please add in advance) | | 10 mins | All | Liz: Test load environments may be delivered this week, moratorium on edits is still in place until 2/25 Liz and Sarah are meeting with CDL folks on Friday to review the NZ roles document Also this coming Friday – you/Liz still plan on coming to UCB RMFG at 9 a.m., correct? Yep!  Possibly scheduling the import profile session for 2/18, meeting with Lisa Spagnolo and Christine tomorrow
Shi: CDL SCP/Kate Garvey-Clasby identified about 77,000 out of 467,000 SCP records migrated to NZ that have OCLC number changes (16%). Kate will estimate how much time needed to update these records after SCP stopping file distribution and before extracting data for cutover. The number might be significant smaller if CDL-NZ group review and decide not to migrate collections with CDI “Link in Record” (such as ECCO, NCCO, Earlier American Imprint, etc.)
| | | | | |
| 2 | Discovery search profile feedback | Consolidate RMFG feedback for DFG | 30 mins | | (Test Load) Default Primo VE Search Profile Configuration | | It covers well in general, including potential drawbacks. Like the chart. Hope the local data float to top. Questions may be brought up later once Primo VE becomes available Liz will share RMFG feedback with DFG. | | | |
| 3 | Digitization workflow testing | Review documents, identify testable workflows for RMFG | 20 mins | | Background from Paul Fogel What do current Alma campuses do? | | Liz shared the long document Paul Fogel provided Although no RMFG reps heavily involved, the group agrees that standardizing the process across UC makes sense. Liz will bring to PPC about the process, if needs to come to RMFG for policy decision, maybe RMFG can form a subgroup to work on it. | | | |
| 4 | Test load testing | Final-ish draft that can be shared out | 10 mins | | Review consolidated RMFG testing plan | | Liz asked whether we should consolidate the collaborative workflow testing plan and the plan for identified decision pages for go-live into one tab (worksheet), the group decided to keep them separate as is for now. Can we add impacted group, the feedback from local groups? Yes, the list of impacted groups are very drafty, feel free to fill the gaps identified. The next step is for the group to pyritize the list in column C by next meeting, 1 is the highest and 3 is the lowest, then the group will average them out. | | | |
| 5 | Training documentation round up | | 10 mins | | Review the inventory document here | | Since the ITG is looking for training documentations that would apply to all UC, we may fill the column F & G any documentation we can identify. Linking out to the document is fine ExL Go-Live checklist has links to task related documentation; Liz will check into it The documentation Alma campuses have don’t have consortium component, and feel free to share if you think it will apply to everyone, we may consolidate if needed. What happens if one practice works for one campus but not the other? The group will look into the documentation and decide which should be standardize and which should be left to campuses to decide We will get what can by March to give ITG How do we think about this document and connected with MVP? yes, good point, should be connected for the high priority tasks and ready for Day One If a lot training materials created, which version to go? what do you think? Because ExL change so frequently, UCD relies on ExL documentation heavily. We may need a column to note for policy decision
| | | |
| 6 | Other | | | | OCLC daily updates 85642 Question
| | | | | |