| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions |
|---|
| 1 | Updates/announcements (Please add in advance) | | 10 mins | All | Start recording! Hermine (UCLA) eCAUG debrief? 2023-09-12 All Chairs Meeting notes- talking about decision vs. policy pages. Collecting “beefs” with Alma in preparation for some ExL meetings and the contract renegotiation. Gem is working on how best to run the “Identifying Brief Level” job on the entire NZ without gumming up the system too much. We finished merging our duplicate records! Now working on cleaning up the fallout (lots for poor Tin at SRLF).
Catherine (UCSB) Identified several 590s for some of our local notes added post-migration that were not marked as local extensions in the NZ (thanks Hermine for reporting the first one found); this has been a problem for some of our catalogers but not consistent enough to identify a main culprit (I think it is just human error on occasion); there are several other campuses that have the same situation and some vendor records (GaleASP) that include these; is it a large enough problem for RM to look at this situation and come up with some means of identifying, cleaning up or rejecting? Or is it OK to let campuses do their cleanup and risk losing the notes?
Ryan (UCSD) Our Admin Team asked for a report of everything in our storage facility by Alma resource type. This surfaced a lot of interesting things (e.g. records for ejournals, ebooks, etc.) that don’t make sense for a storage facility. We’re going through and recataloging those records now (though some are legit like accompanying guides to serial CD-ROMs, etc.).
TJ (UCD) Jim Hahn at UPenn has set up Sinopia/Alma Sandbox integration for UCD and sent one work and one instance descriptions yesterday. However, because ExL hasn’t indexed fields of BIBFRAME records, we are not able to find them at the moment. Hope it will get resolved soon.
Shi (CDL) | | |
| 2 | Review action items | | 5 mins | All | https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/l/cp/sBLun4Ru | | - Shi Deng Will follow-up on MARCIVE conversation
|
| 3 | ETD Policy | | 15 mins | All | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzQxfWz3EbRm2D7z2KHYlKEB9_i2Az450V3s5MyTAts/edit?usp=sharing Comments received via email: UCLA - Some concern about future-proofing our ETD metadata if we ever moved to relying entirely on CDI or CZ records; Generally less concern about record duplication—more concern about workload and discoverability; Curiosity about Berkeley’s new process (option 5) and how much customization would be available; Desire to keep genre headings we add (e.g. Dissertations, Academic—UCLA—Education); Ideal situation might be to improve metadata as far upstream as possible (eSchol?) UCM - In addition to the WorldCat issue, we second the UCLA feedback, particularly the desire to keep local genre headings and to improve metadata as far upstream as possible. Sarah adds local fields for UCM dissertations to the records she creates because the eScholarship records do not have them. UCSD - Multiple records for one title is not good from an internal POV but we don’t have a sense of how much of a user experience issue it is' Not certain to what extent users are using UCLS to find dissertations' Duplication is better than missing content; Concern about some records not showing the correct or conflicting embargo information; Concerns about CDL/SCP bandwidth to centralize UC-wide; They plan to ask wider public services groups if they have engaged with users searching for ETDs and whether they have encountered the duplicate records in their searching. UCB - We have not heard many issues raised by students/non-library staff related to confusion around duplicate results; There are duplicates all over the place in UC Library Search, and it has likely become something that people are used to, but is not ideal; There is likely room for improvement in this process but at this time, it's not clear about the impact on users or the ROI on work to improve it; It was suggested that this discussion would be best handled at Discovery Operations Subteam because it is an issue affecting discovery for all campuses; Since UCB is not loading MARC records to Alma or OCLC for ETDs, we don't have a lot of feedback on that aspect or the quality of the records. UCR - more concern about workload than duplication.
We also agree with UCB that the discussion might be best handled at Discovery subteam. UCSF - also don’t have a real sense of how multiple records affect our users, but consensus is that availability and coverage is currently worth a bit of inelegance in the search results. We do have a strong preference for improving the metadata upstream, and if there was a way to get local data like degree and advisor information into the eScholarship CDI collection, we would probably no longer contribute MARC records of our own. UCSC - duplicate display does cause confusion for our users.
Next steps: Publish doc as is to describe current status? Continue advocating for better upstream metadata? Send to Discovery for further investigation?
| | |
| 4 | WorldCat Updates - merges and new | | 10 mins | Hermine/TJ | TJ, Ryan, and Hermine met with Gem and Allison twice to go over process of adding “new” and “merges” files to WorldCat Updates. Went very smoothly in sandbox - FTP only keeps records for a few weeks, so it wasn’t scooping up a year’s+ worth of records like we were afraid of. FYI: in “new” file, out of 9480 records, there were 4162 that didn’t import because there was no match (right after sandbox refresh). Assumption is that these are mostly shelf-ready records where holdings have been set in OCLC but records haven’t loaded into Alma yet. Merge file did affect some records that didn’t get updated otherwise (good). “New” file helps to add URIs, since they don’t get added when we export from Connexion. Any objections to implementing in production?
| | |
| 5 | Additional discussion | | 20 mins | | TJ: How do campuses handle cataloging of frontlist ebooks that are part of CDL purchases, such as 2023 UC Press from De Gruyter, 2023 Oxford Scholarship Online and 2023 Project Muse? e.g. https://www.degruyter.com/document/isbn/9783805913775/html UCSB prioritizes getting URL access to the requestor UCSF will catalog locally (local e-collection) and then delete, but usually by request UCB waits for CDL UCSD will make exception for course reserves
| | |
| 6 | Parking Lot | | | | | | |
| 7 | | Total | /60 | | | | |