Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.
Compare with Current
View Page History
Version 1
Next »
Attendees
Jharina Pascual, (acting vice-chair) UCI
Michelle Polchow, Chair, UCD
Sherry Lochhaas, CDL
Natalee Bell, UCSB
Kevin Balster, UCLA
Jason Dezember, UCB
Sarah Lindsey, UCSC (substituting for Tamara)
Carla Arbagey, UCR
Sarah Sheets, UCM
Katie Keyser, UCSF
Judy Keys, UCSD
Not in attendance:
Meeting documents:
Meeting Recording & Chat (link to file in Google Drive)
| Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | | |
|---|
| 1 | Record: Michelle
Announcements: ERES SLACK Community Conversations - how is this being received on your campuses?
| Share announcements | 5 min | | Note taker: Kevin
Timekeeper: Sarah Sheets | | | | |
| 2 | CDL announcements | NZ Task Force or other activities | 10 min | Sherry Lochhaas | | | | | |
| 3 | SILS Operations Team
Jackie Gosselar
Thomas Bustos
| Discuss escalation of
multi-part e-collections decision | | | TB: what’s expectation for OT? MP: not the best group to determine best practices for discovery/presentation of e-resource collections. We could help out on the back-end. SL (SC): Topics flagged for ERES seem more like multi-group topics, can’t be the sole deciders JG: lots of different FGs implicated. Would help if potential pathways are presented. JP: overview of original proposal that got sent to ERES and survey that was sent out on various models. Feedback from survey isn’t actionable as-is JG: In Discovery, focusing on functionality, not specifically on wayfinding for e-resources TB: what happens if a topic comes up that we don’t have coverage in? OT had trouble determining who this proposal would actually go to. Possible to escalate to All Chairs MP: Need to have input from staff responsible for local A-Z Database lists KB: some views from SCP-AC was that there was no single model that would work, and we can’t come up with best practices ahead of time - ongoing work might be needed MP: Also issues with new products, and vendors changing products resulting in new decisions TB: brainstorm different OSTs to include, and consider possible routes to take, including possibility of TF MP: We’re obviously a component, but hesitant to be the leaders on the issue. TB: After going to All Chairs, if decision is to create TF, then that would go to OT SL (CDL): originally dealt with collection level URLs, but those began being dealt with internally. But expanded to include technical issues. If decision is to go a particular route, then how to go about achieving the particular result? If we want to provide link to resource that’s not tied to particular collection, how to go about it? Seems like everything would be on a case-by-case basis, and need to know who to ask JP: end goal is not a singular best practice JG: How many affected collections? Hard to determine clear number JD: what does this look like to be resolved? maybe have some guiding principles in place, but most decisions likely lies with CDL SL (CDL): from CDL perspective, might need some input on technical issues. These do come up locally for campuses. Would be interested in knowing how campuses are handling them
| | | | |
| 4 | Future deliverables Authentication/authorization protocols | Deliverable - | | Carla Arbagey Sarah Lindsey | | | | | |
| 5 | Wrap Up | Review actions and decisions | 10 min | | | | | | |
| 6 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion: | | |
| | | | |
| 7 | | Total | 60/60 | | | | | | |