2022-03-18 Meeting notes

Sharing and Updates

Share any Discovery related information from other SILS groups

5

All

Update on issue tracking?

Review: excluding CDI ebooks

Determine the impact of excluding CDI eBooks from the default Articles, Books, and More search.

UCI Testing View for excluding CDI eBooks

• All: Use UCI’s test and production views to test various searches and compare the results for future discussion. (You can post those results to the Exclude eBooks from CDI Results page.
  
  Questions to consider:

• What are the potential risks of enabling “Exclude eBooks from CDI Results”?

• Are there any serious current problems that could be solved by enabling “Exclude eBooks from CDI Results”?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

SCP uses a special login in order to set holding in OCLC for each campus that has access to a given CDL-managed resource. It was important when we had Melvyl since that relied on OCLC holdings. Some campuses also use those symbols for their own collection stats and other work.

SCP is considering whether or not they can reduce the current symbols down to one (something like CDLER or SCPER) in order to simplify their workflows. The two largest concerns that have come up for us are Discovery and ILL. Several campuses have asked whether there are implications for discovery via WorldCat/FirstSearch and whether there are ILL considerations. My understanding is that ILL is not allowed for CDL-managed resources (that was one of the driving factors behind this phase 4 decision

Resource Management wants to know if there are any implications for discovery via WorldCat/FirstSearch.

Background:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D9SqB49lnifQFNPNqzlG_z-N6ikb7yvCOeIUE0GR-yo/edit

We will wait to see what the ILL implications are. If this is a deal breaker for ILL, then there’s no point moving forward.

If we do move forward:

• How would the linking from WorldCat/FirstSearch to campus specific discovery instances work under this system?

• How would information be identified and limited by material available for a specific campus.

• Jessica Kruppa will respond to RM with this decision.

930/973 fields- practice for continued use

Description: These fields are used by CDL and campuses to pull together e-resource packages. There is a need to evaluate how effective these are and whether Alma has a better alternative, including relying on on e-resource Collection Names instead.

ERES endorses prospective work should rely on using dynamic Alma tools, "e-collection public name override."  For example, when LexisNexis evolved into NexisUni, this e-collection name transition can be automated.  However, static 930/973 fields require an added manual update, and doing work at e-collection level too.  We recognize retrospective 930/973 fields are invaluable for data clean-up, getting portfolios grouped into e-collections, and also for campus special collections, as these not in Alma CZ. Perhaps we've overlooked a reason for systemwide requirement for prospective work?

Recognizing users, including public services librarians, are still in transition, local Discovery teams might want to map patron and staff use of 930/973 in Primo VE search and in their Database A-Z Lists? 

Is Primo indexing MARC, or results pulling from e-collection names? 

ScienceDirect might be an example to test, as they uniquely break down their collection, more specifically than other vendors.  I've attached an e-collection list (UCD + CDL) and the title hooks for ScienceDirect can be found here. [ex. 930 0_ Elsevier online monographs. $p Agricultural, biological, and food sciences online monographs.]  ERES wondered if developing a tutorial to help public services understand this transition away from 930/973 in discovery could help users understand different results given how E-Collections are organized.  Efficiency is another local campus consideration for use of "e-collection public name override" (functional both displayed in Primo or suppressed e-collection level record) to collate groups of e-resources faculty/librarians/graduate students/etc. are accustomed to using. 

If our users (likely librarians?) have been use to indexing off of the 973 data and it will be inconsistently available --

• what is this variable in Primo discovery output (973 vs 'no 973')?

• do e-collections compensate (or only if 973 and e-collection have similar names)?

• given Ex Libris secret search engine algorithm, does this prevent fully knowing the comparative behavior or can DISC produce a testing process?

• is this an issue where user's need to be re-educated in the transition?

• if behavior is too erratic, does this become a communication issue so users understand that the 973 is legacy value in this new system?  Suggestions to help them compensate?

• All: Reach out to appropriate local staff about how e-resource packages are tracked.
  

• Do they use a local MARC field like 973? Or do they use Alma’s built in tools?

• Does this use have any impact on the Discovery or is it only a back-end staff use field?

• If they use a local field, do they expect other campuses to be doing the same and for

Standing Item: Review Issues Spreadsheet and Parking Lot.

Issue tracking decision still pending

Wrap up

Review actions and decisions

5

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion:

Discussion Parking Lot / Future Topics

Total

45