...
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | UC systemwide shelf-ready proposal provided by YBP/GOBI | Review and disucss the proposal Compile a ist of questions about the proposal - a speical meeting will be scheduled with YPB/GOBI | 25 | Michael Walmsley, Xiaoli | Background documents: Questions for YBP:
Questions for internal discussions:
2. What share-cost model would we use if we would implement the proposal? Large price increase over what we’re currently paying statewide for shelf-ready but it would provide additional/enriched shelf-ready service for some campuses. Is there a flat fee regardless of number of volumes purchased? How did they come up with numbers purchased? We’re assuming the cost is per year for three years? Michael believes that is an annual cost. Cost is negotiable. Cost-sharing has not been decided yet. Details of workflows: how this would affect changes in the process? This is not part of the proposal but it needs to be discussed. Need to factor in increasing reliance on electronic over print in negotiations. Need to think about what we expect over the 3-year period. Is their proposal that everyone adopts Gold? What if some campuses chose a different level? Silver level does not include original cataloging, so some resources may get skeletal records. Will all records at Silver level have OCLC numbers? We’d like strong sharing rights, same rights to use these records as for any OCLC record. (They use OCLC records as a starting point, and then customize them which makes them proprietary.) Can we load existing YBP records into NZ? This is a priority for us. Michael will arrange a meeting next week with YBP and experts from PPC. PPC is collecting information to make a recommendation. | Additional questions can go to Xiaoli. If you want to join the meeting next week, let Xiaoli know after this meeting. | |
| 2 | Proposals for Marcive | Review and discuss the summary of the proposal | 20 | Xiaoli and Liz | Background document: UC Marcive Proposal Summary Questions:
Currently 9/10 campuses are confirmed as purchasing Marcive Government Documents without Shelves. (UCSF is not confirmed.) This is completely online, and new records/changed records are sent monthly. Since we all have backfiles, can we just use the UCSD backfile and not pay Marcive for a backfile? Process centrally in the NZ (loading backfile and ongoing updates)? Do we know what other Alma consortia are doing with Marcive records? CSU used this approach for monthly file. Do we know if Marcive would have concerns about us porting the UCSD records as our backfile? We’ve already paid for those. Impact on user experience? Discovery subgroups will be meeting soon, and has not discussed this yet. | Ask Marcive to confirm it is okay for us to use UCSD records as our backfile, rather than purchasing one from Marcive, since 9/10 campuses already purchased those? Is there an option for new monthly records to be e-only, rather than anything with a URI? | |
| 3 | Check-in / updates | Information sharing and problem-solving | 25 | All | Will your group be able to make all the decisions by 10/30? If not, what’s your plan o complete them and when? AEFG: Making progress on testing, with late-in-cycle “coalescing” of decision page documentation. Priorities for 10/30 are 1) E-Resources/P2E related page; 2) CDL/NZ/IZ workflow page; 3) Shared Vendors outcome page (input leaning toward not implementing this, AEFG is deferring testing this directly due to effect on Vanguard instance). AEFG also proposing a P2E-related wider group discussion during November. Discovery: WG has charged a new End-User Name subgroup to propose an “end-user name” for the SILS service and reports to WG if needed for escalation. Membership: Discovery (3 members) + End User Outreach Subgroup (3 members) + ComLead (1) and facilitated by Caitlin Nelson. Proposed timeline is to have final approval by CoUL Jan 29th (delivery deadline Jan 22). This joint work will begin in Dec. Discovery members have reached out to FGs to begin subgroup work for UX testing that will begin in Nov. Getting closer to making recommendation for Primo VE for the NZ decision; have been in touch with CARLI and SUNY members to ask about their usage/not of Primo VE Union view. Fullfilment FG: Fulfillment network testing has been going pretty well. Rotas have been behaving as expected, and we’ve had successful completion of requests between the campuses. We’re ironing out kinks regarding recall dates. Will be working with Discovery sub team on their User Experience work in November. RMFG: Wrapping up decision pages. 2 left before the October 30 cutoff and then the focus will be OCLC updates and NZ load order. Everyone has been working extremely hard and hoping that we can cancel a few meetings in December/January. PSELG: information gathering phase for the recently posed question: Should we, as a system, use CDI to manage OA resources? DCFG: UCLA is harvesting several more of our digital collections into our Primo VE discovery layer, so we can see how collections in different formats and using non-Roman characters display. The programmer doing the work is going to do a demo and Q&A next Monday at our DCFG meeting. We’re also in communication with the subgroup of DFG that will be focusing on the usability of digital collections in Primo. | Add updates ahead of the meeting Idea: AEFG to host virtual meeting and invite P2E-adjacent stakeholders to participate, with support from Project Management team. Coordinate with ICs and data cleanup groups. | |
| 4 | Decisions needed | Review and approve decisions | 10 | Liz | Approve the following two decisions: | Local RLF decision was approved. NZ decision will link to page on AEFG Electronic Resources including P2E. Decision approved. | |
| 5 | PM Update | 10 | Xiaoli |
| |||
| 6 | Homework | ||||||
| 7 | Parking Lot |
| |||||
| 8 | TOTAL | 90/90 |
...