2021-1-21 Meeting notes

Introduction

5 mins

All

Complicated topic, may not finish in a single meeting. Identify areas for further conversation or consultation.

ETD issues

Review the “Campus Specific ETD Processes” section. Is the information up-to-date?

Review questions posted:

• Should ETDs be treated as a UC shared collection?

• Should eScholarship continue to submit content to WorldCat via the DCG?

  • Note that only UC Merced’s ETDs receive any notable referral traffic from WorldCat.

  • If so, should we try to identify useful, mutually exclusive sets in order to refine the metadata mapping?

• Should eScholarship be turned on in the CDI, given that it includes ETDs?  Is there a way we can use the Primo VE Resource Mapping Profiles to address any issues?

• Will cataloging of ETDs change with the SILS? Where are the optimal points for cataloging ETDs?  What modifications in any of the involved systems could help?

• Are there any changes we need/want from ProQuest?

Review the proposed workflow - thoughts, issues, etc.

50 mins

Xiaoli

ETD issues: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18HsWCeehBD_DStn0c4iKqST3ItDxp0RjLXnXsasO7-4/edit

UC ETDs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fx4l7tOso3Fps2ZHRAV7Am0UpH7AYQrt/edit#gid=323607629

Proposed workflow

Discussion: What is the vision for ETD representation and handling in the SILS? Current document is a snapshot of concerns.

Question: given that these are part of eScholarship, have there been conversations about what it will mean when eScholarship is turned on in CDI or utilized in the NZ. There is interconnection. This is a question for discussion.

Question: If all campuses subscribe to ProQuest Digital Dissertations, what are the ramifications in regards to duplicate records? And what about those of us who subscribe to the full-text versus those who do not? What is ramification if we set ProQuest Digital Dissertations to full-text in Alma.

A: The management of local versus CDL licensed collection will not change. Inside Alma, it should not be problematic. In terms of Primo, it is worth investigating.

Question: In terms of CDI activation, there is a different treatment for full-text access, and this can be overridden for those who do not. The goal is having increased discoverability. Would that go away in this circumstance. This question should be addressed/tested in the future.

Question: Does the group feel that is necessary to have our ETD records in OCLC? The answer has implications for workflow. It would be nice to have them there with the indication of which institution granted the degree. One institution places 502 note to indicate that this is a dissertation and it is from that campus, which is something that is not in the record as it is produced initially for OCLC.

Currently, what holdings does eScholarship use when transmits to OCLC? Currently, holdings are “UC” versus the individual campus. It was felt that campus information is important. If there are items that are available for physical ILL, would they be cataloging under a separate process? FRBRization and de-duplication in Primo gives us advantages in regards to controlling this process.

The chart represents a simplified workflow. If we can agree on different aspects, we can perhaps achieve this.

Some campuses have metadata and full-text sent to Merritt.

What if flow was from ProQuest to Merritt and eScholarship, then have data submitted to CDI, then CDI submits with eScholarship then on to the NZ. Once in NZ, campuses can decide whether to do additional enhancements and activate CDI search in Alma. OCLC would still have campus designation, but NZ could be used for prior editing. This would create a uniform process to that point, at what point we’d have additional options – It is simpler if we do not want to deposit to OCLC.

Do we think that this is possible/feasible? What would process look like? In terms of getting eScholarship records into Alma should be manageable.

A complication: Pulling out discrete chunks of content from within eScholarship, this would add complexity.

The simplicity of the scheme has appeal. Option 2 is in place at one institution (UCSC) and has been found to be effective. We can add local fields to the NZ records, as a work-around.

Embargoes are a significant issue at some campuses. Syncing metadata post-update is an important issue.

If a workflow introduces duplicate records, it is likely that these will be noticed by patrons and complained about. Also, updates at the campuses create issues in terms of multiple versions circulation in different environments.

There is process in Merritt that creates MARC records and sends them to campuses; That would stop under this process.

If Merritt record can include the eScholarship link, that might be a good solution.

Difference in metadata in Merritt vs eScholarship: eScholarship metadata is thin, Dublin Core only, the Merritt metadata is more robust. We do not need to go through eScholarship in the metadata process.

Question: are CDI and eScholarship all or nothing? eScholarship is in CDI as a package. We don’t have direct control over that. The OAI harvest into WorldCAT can be segmented by set, but it is very complicated.

We could segment based on “ETD” and “not an ETD.”

Options: Activate CDI for things in NZ, and also can activate independently for things not managed in Alma.

We should consult with our campuses in terms of preferences and feasibility of options. CDL will continue to be involved. For individual campuses: Take ideas back and talk to people processing ETDs if there are any issues which this doesn’t address.

Homework

Parking lot

Total

60/60