Attendees
Jackie Gosselar, UC Berkeley
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz
Jared Campbell, UC Davis;
Zoe Tucker, UC Los Angeles
Douglas Worsham, UC San Diego
Jessica Kruppa, UC Riverside, Chair
Joe Ameen, UC Merced;
Gem Stone-Logan, California Digital Library;
Zach Silveira, UC San Francisco
Sean Claudio, UC Irvine
Michael Craig, UC Santa Barbara
...
Meeting Recording: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CkGrG5-KZjVyGOAR6mmq3Zb2KYh5X6I9/view?usp=share_link
| Excerpt | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Item | Desired Outcome | Notes | Decisions / Discussion | Actions | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sharing and Updates | Share any Discovery related information from other SILS groups No objections or comments re: FRBR Challenges in a Consortium Environment Next step? | FRBR call it decided. Added consortia and known-issue labels. | |||||||
| 2 | UX Subgroup updates | N/A | Berkley is doing an inclusive UX focus group study in the future to identify pain points to guide future usability for us. Working on an IRB and securing funding. | 3 | Database Search | Review and fill out decision page | la: sounds useful. People are typing database names into primo and expecting to get links to the jstor database. UCSC agrees: Typing ARTSTOR should bring up a record with a link out, and users think we cancelled the sub because the record doesn’t show or link out. Worse than nothing: They get a record, but there’s no link. | |||
| 4 | Hathi Trust | 3 | AFN Consortial Block Decision Page | https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FUL/pages/2041217066/UC+AFN+Consortia+Blocks “As stakeholders in this decision, we are seeking your input (and any of your local library/campus staff you deem appropriate) in this proposal” | |||||
| 4 | Database Search | Need examples dec. page that might mess this up | 5 | Exclude records from Discovery Network | Decision Page: Database Search Collecting https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BKs-XQ-OFJ2p0Q4hYf3MrnQeMeRpCNtA2bMpmY82VVs/edit#heading=h.pc8lv7b944k OT felt questions and next steps related to this report would best be handled by the Discovery Operations SubTeam. We empower Discovery to review and decide the priority and feasibility of this work and if appropriate, decide that work related to this report is not feasible at this time. | context: cdl works with ht did env. scan of uc lib search on how ht surfaces. notices variations between campuses, not surprising because no harmonization. Discuss risks/benefits to harmonization. If it’s not feasible for disc to take it on at this time, we can talk about that. See if there’s anything that makes sense to harmonize or not. SC is using CDI collection. Why is there a dif between CDI and API? API has links to public domain materials that don’t come through CDI. UCB used the API because the CDI didn’t surface stuff, but the API did. API is a better user experience that inserts a link into the record. BUT it is more maintenance, and it makes the Available Online facet inaccurate. UCB, UCLA, SCSB are using it. The API requires a record, so some stuff is in HT that doesn’t have a record to tack that link onto. Most coverage needs both the CDI and the API. The API slows things down. API exposes the link nicely in the brief results, and if anything has no links in the record, the api |
| The indexes need to be set up in NZ also. Waiting on…1JBn7QAtqNV1A7IhBB1nqg5GnSCUqvp7GlfHKI5HMIa4/edit?usp=sharing | ||
| 5 | Hathi Trust | Need examples | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cr5xNGQtiZQ3XKKj34eYAX87Diav4HoEiyg4kIvur28/edit?usp=sharing | |||||||
| 6 | Any outstanding SLACK questions or other things that have come up? | |||||||||
| 7 | Review Workplan | Postponed | ||||||||
| 8 |
Pre/Post meeting Discussion comments and thoughts
Review the possibility of leveraging Idea Exchange and enhancement points to get stuff we want developed… developed.
...