Date: 06-09-2020
Discussion items: Please review the filtered issues that Kevin as worked on. He recommended a ranking system as listed below. Please review and on when we meet on Thursday, we can agree on the ranking for each. If you want to this list, please do so before our meeting on 6-11-20.
Issue | Critical | High | Medium | Low | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Seamless integration with 3rd party platforms/systems, including intuitive, streamlined requesting via Aeon, and functional integration with other systems (ArchivesSpace/OAC, Calisphere, eScholarship, Archive-It, local digital libraries) | JMJ | UCI: “it would be nice for Primo to (for instance) index the full text of EADs, rather than relying on more limited MARC records.” Details on some third party integrations available here: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/vaults/2671987633. Aeon Addon available:https://atlas-sys.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ILLiadAddons/pages/3149411/Aeon+Alma+Primo+Catalog+Addon. | |||
| 2 | A backend for purchases/acquisition module that is less opaque | JMJ | ||||
| 3 | Special collections materials are more easily accessible and discoverable for non-experienced special collection users → increasing ranking of special collection materials in searches, clearly identifying materials as being from special collections, faceting by special collection materials/repository | JMJ | ||||
| 4 | Clear holdings information about where a collection is held, especially in case of UCs with multiple special collection units, with unit-specific notes clearly viewable; ability to differentiate between different campus libraries and campuses | JMJ | UCI: “clearly visible local notes information, indexed if applicable, searchable, and associated with a specific campus (that is to say, a researcher at UCI by default sees local notes relating to Irvine titles, but is also able to see local notes relating to other UC holdings of the same titles, without having to do a lot of extraneous clicking/searching.” | |||
| 5 | Index fields used by special collections catalogers and for instruction and reference of special collections materials instead of making them staff-only (e.g. at UCLA -- 563 field) | JMJ | ||||
| 6 | Citation lists from searches that could be output as text or PDF | JMJ | ||||
| 7 | Ability to note access issues for specific item records in consistent way and ensure this information is transparent to users | JMJ | I feel like this can be defined in system-wide descriptive guidelines/practices and are not necessarily going to be system-driven. Unless we mean ensuring that the display in Primo is coded in a very transparent way to denote access issues. – Jasmine | |||
| 8 | Ability to restrict targeted item records from requesting in a collection that is generally open for research | JMJ | ||||
| 9 | Simplification of the cataloging workflow; less duplication of efforts to get records into our system and from/into OCLC | JMJ | ||||
| 10 | Retention of and ability to search, view, and differentiate local fields | JMJ | ||||
| 11 | Consistent language to distinguish SCA materials that are digital/digitized but not accessible online | UCI | JMJ | Also something that can be defined in system-wide descriptive guidelines/practices. – Jasmine UCI: “Assuming we have systemwide descriptive guidelines, we just need to ensure that users can easily see in a record what digital content is available but not online.” |
Name | Initials |
|---|---|
Jasmine Jones | JMJ |
Kate Dundon- I agree with Jasmine’s rankings | |
Audra Eagle Yun | UCI (also representing Jolene Beiser and Joshua Hutchinson); unless otherwise noted, in agreement with rankings from JMJ. |