Attendees
Patrick SHANNON (Unlicensed) , UC Berkeley
Jason Newborn , UC Davis (vice chair)
Linda Michelle Weinberger , UC Irvine
Amador, Alicia , UC Los Angeles
Demitra Borrero (Demitra Borrero), UC Merced;
Sabrina Simmons , UC Riverside
Scott Hathaway , UC Santa Barbara
Mallory DeBartolo (Unlicensed) , UC Santa Cruz, note taker;
Peter Devine , UC San Diego
Ryan White , UC San Francisco
Alison Ray (CDL) , California Digital Library (chair)
regrets:
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | record meeting | make sure Alison records meeting | 1 | Alison | |||
| 2 | Update from “which hybrid model” lightening team |
| 25 | Sabrina, Mallory, Alison | Do P2P partners have to be Alma? Yes, I think so. If a library wanted to arrange P2P relationships with other libraries on their own could they do so? Certain aspects of doing it together make it much easier. CDL wouldn’t be in a position to say “No you can’t”. That would probably be the purview of RS-OST. Question: what’s the benefit of doing it on your own? Next steps UCSF (Ryan!) could help and be an additional partner. UCM (Demitra!) also interested but needs to assess bandwidth. Impact on Tipasa? Pilot technically ends at the end of January. Go live aimed for July or August. March/April start for Tipasa go live stuff to start. Timeline? could start now, could wait until the New Year, can wait until after pilot ends. March is a soft deadline to be done with P2P config. | “lightening team” to document & configure testing for P2P: UCSC, UCR, UCSF, UCM, CDL | Mallory and Alison to meet & figure out how to structure exact next steps for next meeting. |
| 3 | what needs do we have for tipasa patron interface (what is “My ILL Requests” being used for now) | Get a set of hypothetical use cases for potentially utilizing (or decommissioning use of) separate extra-consortial requests UI | 15 | All | UCR: article request notifications & downloading in MIR; renewals in Alma UCSD: international partners (lenders) requests - patrons to view pending status prior to receipt UCI: rn looking to phase out MIR → using article exchange for downloading (removing MIR info from docfetch message) UCD: VDX notifications (docfetch) removed MIR info, patrons only get AE information (or other delivery method) UCSF: only use AE for delivering to patrons; MIR only for looking at looking at loans status UCB: looking at pending status; downloading articles; renewals renewals: MIR: sends emails to campus to do renewal UCR: time period to renew in Alma & recall if not come in UCSB: renewals go automatically; CNR, not in Alma rn UCSC: patrons place renewals in PrimoVE account → VDX reqs go to form & sends email to ILL office (like MIR rn, but with PrimoVE) | sum up:
| |
| 4 | Tipasa testing | how’s testing going - any more information needed? | need more info about what info is needed for ill req transfer how’s RTA going? - not so good… different stuff on different sites; how does multivolume sets go? | ask OCLC what these fields are for ill request transfer: ii. API key from OCLC iii. Server from OCLC iv. Requesting Agency ID from OCLC | |||
| 5 | |||||||
| 6 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5 | ||||
| 7 | Bike Rack | Capture important topics for future discussion | ‘pu anywhere exceptions’: review shared messages, what would be next steps is the “randomized” part of the rota building actually randomizing things? Jason has a hunch that within the geographical groups it’s creating them alphabetically. (discovered in reviewing schedule c report) NRLF/SRLF rejected stuck at B/LA follow up: SH’s ‘guide’; test with what B/LA see; more escalation with ExL (scott, Mallory, Jason, patrick) ExL’s solicitation to “contribute to the Resource Sharing Directory”. Kind of a huge thing that we should think about? (Mallory) → maybe after P2P investigation… | ||||
| 8 | Total | x/x |