2020-09-29 Meeting notes

Date

Sep 29, 2020, 10am-11:30am

Attendees

Lisa Ngo, UC Berkeley
Jared Campbell, UC Davis
Ellen Augustiniak, UC Irvine
Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles
Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced [Today’s Notetaker]
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside
Heather Smedberg, UC San Diego
Josephine Tan, UC San Francisco (co-chair) [Today’s Timekeeper]
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz (co-chair)
Sarah Houghton, California Digital Library
Chizu Morihara, UC Santa Barbara

Not attending

Discussion items

DISCOVERY VISION: We strive to design and implement the best possible discovery and delivery experience for our end users using data-driven decision making. We envision a network zone experience that will allow users to discover library materials across UC collections without sacrificing relevant results. As such, the default search and results interface should prioritize the success of typical users while providing additional functionality for more advanced users.

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	New items on our Confluence page	Describe what the new items are for	10 min	Josephine	Link to Vanguard Testing Notes on Discovery Confluence Functionality Testing Page.	Bookmark VE instance URL in browser (Slack not a reliable archive); add to Confluence page if not already linked
2	Updates from other SILS groups	Share relevant items	15 min	Josephine Sarah Sarah Jess and Josephine attended Archives & Special Collections Escalation Leaders group mtg last Thursday.	The campuses are not testing AEON in this first stage of VG testing. From Chizu re: AEON: “our backend configurations are still in place for AEON (on the Alma side), but the link doesn't appear. I've created a basecamp message for this ("[UCSB] General Electronic Service (AEON) not appearing in Primo.” They will let us know if there are specific things they would like us to look out for related to archives and special collections. We will give them a heads up if we need their advice on any decisions related to archives and special collections.	3rd party integration not in the scope of Vanguard testing CDL has an 3rd party campus wide inventory; ExL can integrate all, a few may require extra work.	@Sarah Houghton: will look into sharing the 3rd party integrations spreadsheet.
3	Vanguard Buddies	Offer feedback and suggestions	15 min	All	Jess and Josephine met for first VG buddy functionality testing today. Use spreadsheet as a guide, note issues as they are occurring (likely will not be in order…) What does the “Everything” scope cover? Everything is everything your campus has, or has access to, includes CDI Sharon: Noticing four tracks of VG functionality testing: Functionality Tracking bugs Configuration edits Harmonization May decide to expand testing spreadsheet to include more columns for notes that have notes specific to these four tracks. document HS created to share with Alma testers in case they want to report something more Primo based or user experience related	Future discussion: Could rename scope, (i.e.) Everything@UCSF Ellen: campus may turn on items campus does not have access to, but what campus would like to expose users to; UCI renamed scope to “almost everything” Michael: discovery tool vs. access tool
4	Functionality Testing	Discuss how VGs will be testing Discovery assigned tasks	15 min	All	Google docs set up for each VG campus to notate campus functionality testing (ie screenshots). These are in the Functionality Testing folder on Google Drive and also listed as Vanguard Testing Notes on our Discovery Confluence Functionality Testing page.	The URL for these pages can be used to linked to in Column J - “Testing Notes” - of the Discovery tab of Testing Worksheet for PPC.
5	Discovery Work Flow Plan Roadmap	Evaluate timeline for more accurate dates	15 min	All	Work Flow Plan link on our Discovery Confluence homepage. Also reference SILS Project timeline and milestones MY: concern about overlap between End User & Outreach group Jess & Josephine are meeting later today with End User Outreach and Fulfillment to discuss workflows, decision points, communications CM: who is ultimately responsible with testing? We will work hand in hand with local implementation groups; timeline feels out of sync- likely happening at many Vanguard campuses SH: currently in the test for the test; ironing out wrinkles now; figuring out roles and responsibilities that will likely roll over the next phase SS: need to explain what all the scopes are doing Ask ExL again about system architecture documentation Desire for more clarification where data lives and how it is connected	Jess: Which of these on the workflow plan do we want to prioritize for harmonization? And, for those items, decide on labels- what should we call it? When do local groups need to know this? Nov-Dec. Implementation kickoff- November 5th. Prioritize what will impact end users the most- not extremely granular- esp. in light of timeline; conversations will continue to take place long into the future. What needs to be harmonized now, and what possibly can wait. This group should take ownership about what MARC records should appear in the full record -revisit CSU central package/configurations wiki Start with ExL setup/configuration forms	All: Share any visualizations you have/created with group Ask ExL again about system architecture documentation (need someone to contact ExL)
6	Resource Management FG’s Local 856 data Decision Page	Discuss	20 min	All	RMFG needs our response by 10/7 to help them complete their Local 856 data Decision Page: “RMFG will consult with the Discovery FG to test the statement below that “existing 856 fields will not populate into Primo” since current experience with Primo at some Alma campuses varies. In addition whether those fields wind up in Primo will affect specific 856 data like finding aid links, etc.” “Questions to consider: Some campuses have started moving data already, is it worth creating 1 prescribed field? Is there any advantage to using a 9XX in a bib over a holdings field?”	AE: need to rephrase this question about existing 856 for clarification JT will clarify Current 856 data may not migrate over properly Current decision page specifically for Vanguard- need Discovery FG to help refine this page, so that it can be carried over JW: UCSC: What data is in the 856 field that may impact end users- finding aid links (are willing to experiment with portfolios) JC: UCD also discussed portfolios for findings aids; doing cleanup first (discussion ongoing) EA: suggested looking at documentation for P2E	JT created document for 856 feedback - add local feedback here within this week (want to have recommendation decided during next week’s meeting)
7	Homework	Prepares team for next meeting		All			All: View Additional Primo VE Training videos. Submit any questions for ExL using the Google form for ExL by 9/23. All: Look at ExL’s Primo VE Customization Best Practices 856 feedback - add local feedback here prior to next meeting
8	Parking Lot/Q&A	Save these issues for future discussion & comments			Configuration Defining the “Everything” scope Determine plan for MELVYL and Related SILS Services Ebook ILL lending as it relates to discovery and limiting to availability.

Our feedback needed to provide for the RMFG’s Decisions

Decision Page	Priority vote (1-3)	Consulting group feedback due
Local 856 data	1	10/7
Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ	1	10/13
Vanguard local RLF migration	1	10/13
Non-9XX local data	1	10/21
Bibliographic records 9XX field mapping	1	10/21