...
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | record meeting | make sure Alison records meeting | 1 | Alison | |||
| 2 | RS Analytics PT: preview/approve templates for alma schedule c support | get approval of templates from rest of RS OST (Davis, LA, Merced, Santa Cruz, San Francisco) | 13 | RS A PT | Lending: Physical (Design Analytics/Catalog/Shared Folders/Community/Reports/Consortia/UCS/ILL and Resource Sharing: RS A PT schedule C report (physical lending) Borrowing: Physical/Digital (Design Analytics/Catalog/Shared Folders/Community/Reports/Consortia/UCS/ILL and Resource Sharing: RS A PT schedule C borrow report (by borrower) Both reports use a “bin” (SQL function) to group the appropriate date options into one Fiscal Year label | borrowing looks good lending goods (other than rlfs missing) |
|
| 3 | RS A PT: schedule C Alma support, communication | Decide on how access to files for Lending:Digital should be done (in case there is no clear ‘winner') | 13 | all | RS Analytics PT, 2022 Schedule C Alma portion Lending: Digital (SILSOpsCenter put in Google drive ) Assuming these reports are good/approved, how to distribute? There was a poll that didn’t produce a clear winner but we will just have RS-OST reps responsible for distributing to their own campus people despite Mallory complaining about that |
| |
| 4 | Alma (Primo?) Feature releases; see email from Mallory 10/18/22 | decide what we should do… | 13 | Mallory | What should we do?
UCI does talk about feature releases and resolved issues locally. Since releases are quarterly it may be feasible to take up one meeting on a quarterly basis. Do we do Alma AND Primo or just Alma?
|
|
|
| 5 | Tipasa API discussion with OCLC; Recording of Tipasa API discussion; UC-only notes from Tipasa API Discussion | heads up: review/discussion about potential ‘gaps’ in Alma/Tipasa integration either for Nov 2 or Nov 9 | 5 | Alison | upcoming from OCLC: page describing what they perceive to be potential gaps in Alma/Tipasa integration Above is being done because OCLC seems to think that some of the standard integrations between Tipasa and Alma won’t meet our needs. If development is necessary it’ll affect our migration timeline.
| ||
| 6 | Draft of Tipasa as last resort (borrowing Alma request → Tipasa) | review configuration instructions & test ideas Which Tipasa piloters want to test? (potentially use upcoming RS OST meeting for test) | 13 | Tipasa Piloters |
| ||
| 7 | Call for volunteers for “AFN Protocols and Procedures Project” with F OST | interest/availability/questions about request for participation with joint project | 7ish | Alison | See email to joint list from Ernesto
| ||
| 8 | |||||||
| 9 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5 | next meeting: what needs do we have for tipasa patron interface ( ) Update on UC/OCLC API discussion | |||
| 10 | Bike Rack | Capture important topics for future discussion | ‘pu anywhere exceptions’: review shared messages, what would be next steps is the “randomized” part of the rota building actually randomizing things? Jason has a hunch that within the geographical groups it’s creating them alphabetically. (discovered in reviewing schedule c report) RLF requests sticking at B/LA when RLF can’t fill, identify what’s happening, what could be done to ease this problem NRLF/SRLF rejected stuck at B/LA follow up: SH’s ‘guide’; test with what B/LA see; more escalation with ExL (scott, Mallory, Jason, patrick) ExL’s solicitation to “contribute to the Resource Sharing Directory”. Kind of a huge thing that we should think about? (Mallory) | ||||
| 11 | Total | x/x |
(that’s a red flag)...