2020-06-01 meeting notes

Welcome

Catch-up and gathering together

10:00-10:04 am

all

Rose/thorn: brief round-robin of something that made you smile, and/or something that is a bit of thorn. Voluntary.

Record zoom session

shared decision

10:05

Team agrees to record meetings.

Beth C will add this to our Google drive for future reference.

ExL Q+A session

10:06-11:00 am

This ExLibris document was reference several times re: records in IZ and NZ. See pages 8, 11, 36, 41.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XprzWYKURDRmUptWGid9VtS1gum-aLj8

Local bib records that may only be in the IZ include rooms and equipment etc.

UC Libraries will need to make decisions about scoping and whether or not these decisions are left to each campus.

SUNY system appears to use different scopes at different institutions. e.g. Buffalo

In Primo, end-users should see a single record for an item and be presented with the appropriate URL when electronic.

Discussion re: proxy and VPN. This is set at the collection level. Having one or both should not be an issue.

Fulfillment options can be set up as desired.

Written Responses from ExLibris

1. Slide 35 - setting proxy and linking parameters. Does this only happen in the IZ or is it supposed to happen in the NZ? Is the reference to proxy and linking about remote access or something else? Note: only a few UC libraries use a proxy service (many campuses use VPN instead).

Response: 
a. Proxy should be configured in the IZs only. 

When activating collections in the NZ, proxy should be enabled but specific proxy doesn't need to be selected so that Alma knows to check the proxy in the institution that collection is activated for. 

b. Special parameters need to be configured where the collection is managed. If the collection is activated and managed in the IZ, it should be configured at the service level in the IZ. If the collection is activated and managed in the NZ, it should be configured at the service level in the IZ.

1. Slide 21 - what are some examples of local fields that an institution may not want to have in the NZ record?

Response:  It's a local/consortial decision. Typical example is local notes. 

See example policy on local fields from consortia that have implemented Alma with NZ:

https://calstate.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/URM/pages/78172584/Local+Fields+in+Alma+Primo

https://slcny.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=49705411

https://www.carli.illinois.edu/products-services/i-share/alma/cataloging/local_extensions

1. General question: each campus’ Primo will display records from their IZ, not from the NZ? Are there situations where we might see the NZ record or does that never happen?

Response: In a collaborative network environment, 

1. Bib: there are two types of bib records in a member IZ environment

a. bib records that are linked to shared NZ records in which shared NZ records are used. The source bib record you see in Primo is the shared NZ bib.
b.Local bibs that are managed in the IZ only. The source bib record is local bib.

1. In addition to local catalog scope, member institutions can optionally enable Discovery Network (NZ) scope so that patrons can discover resources (physical and electronic) available at other institutions in the consortium.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XprzWYKURDRmUptWGid9VtS1gum-aLj8

Announcements/Questions

• Need a co-chair, pleeease!

11:01-11:05 am

Rikke has volunteered.

Rikke is co-chair.

Decision Making Rubric for PSELG draft

Discussion. Accept as final or continue revisions

11:05-11:25 am

Intended to use with documents we received. We anticipate that documents may include more than one option/pathway forward.

Add information on ensuring that SILS groups have been consulted. This is different from Line 19.

Discussed ways in which there could be short-term pain but long term benefits. Retain both 24 & 25.

Discussion regarding how failure might be defined. Failure could be influenced by lack of bandwidth.

Noted that all options coming to this group may have both benefits and challenges.

Option viability could also be influenced by who has to incur the costs.

Some discussion of Benefit/Risk matrix.

Edits & Additions

New, Line 13: Add information on consultations with SILS groups.

Edit, Line 25: Ask individuals to define failure in Notes.

New, Line 38: Address if there are ways to address challenges for X option.

New, Lines 42 & 43: Call out if costs are incurred by a single campus or by UC Libraries.

Edit, Line 55: Level of PSELG support, clarified “group support”

Members feel free to make comments on the rubric. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WrwgHkgDWGLUyMYirWZA6_ub0jChDikxoZO4lfeK3xU/edit#gid=0

Wrap-up and next steps

Review actions & assignments

11:25-11:30 am

Beth will notify us if the June 8th meeting is canceled.

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion