2023-11-03 Meeting notes

Sharing and Updates

5

Share any Discovery related information from other SILS groups

LG:

• Working on their work plan

• updated and finalized charge

• Had a short term project team to look at named users. Aimed at long term needs (specifically shared accounts from a security perspective).

OT:

• Talked about next Ex Libris meeting and outstanding tickets to discuss.

• Most of the time talking about the open access project management team. An interim report was shared on August and chairs just had a chance to meet this week.

• Gender recognition and lived name compliance. Spreadsheet about how campuses are mapping (dependencies for letters and AFN). Every campus is mapping preferred name value to first name and last name value and if that doesn’t exist then it’s legal name. (Legal name will not show if preferred name is available.)

• Talked about sandbox testing plan for organization unit name.

• Talked about work plan a bit. Come up with how to address known issues doc in confluence (current page has been languishing). Gem created a prototype export from NZ tickets.

All-Chairs: Worked on Alma/Primo VE issues doc

Accessibility update: UCOP accessibility team is going to try to take a look at Primo VE sometime prior to winter break.

Slack/General Questions

5

Jackie: In the November Release highlights (I don't see this in the release notes yet?), it mentions the ability to create local keys for FRBR/Dedup matching. I'm curious if this is something that would need to be coordinated (and how?) with the NZ to work? I guess we will know more when ExL gives more info on that feature

• Local key customization is pretty intense. Might be something interesting to get together as a group and talk about it.

• Consortia/NZ doc

  • Michael found this, "For the NZ, changes to the complete keys affect the network and the IZ's local records (see Distributing Complete Key Changes to Member Institutions)."

    "For the IZs, changes to the complete keys affect only their local records."

• Release notes

We’ll review more, along with the other release notes, at our next meeting.

Quick Topics

10

What next steps are campuses encouraging patrons do when they don't find what they're looking for?

• UCSC has been thinking about this since implementing Primo. Not a lot of consistency even from staff when people don’t find what they’re looking for in their initial search. Possible options: expanding search, go to worldcat. It’s a complicated choose your own adventure. Goal for staff is that patrons can request from Primo but instead are getting referrals to the manual ILL form. Experimented with Fetch Item form and it runs into the same problems as the manual form. Putting in a title doesn’t retrieve a record as often as they’d like. Also limitations around books. Don’t know where to go. Could CDI materials be incorporated into Worldcat profile but that doesn’t seem to exist.

• Everyone feels like they’re in a similar situation.

• UCLA: question about Worldcat scope. Got some pushback from ILL because the metadata wasn’t sufficient.

• UCB: Had the same questions which is why reached out to UCLA worldcat configuration. Don’t see high usage of it. Had been encouraging people to use blank ILL form when something isn’t available. But learned from ILL folx that it completely bypasses AFN and goes to VDX. Also a pain point for UCB. Jackie generated all zero-primo search results and are going to talk about that more.

• UCSF doesn’t even have a Worldcat Scope. There is a link but it’s essentially invisible.

• UCB: Reference doesn’t like the worldcat discovery. Prefer going to worldcat.org Considering having a link to worldcat.org instead of the scope.

• UCSF: That’s what they’re doing but they don’t know how much it’s used.

Request: if someone finds something good, please bring it back to the group.

Exclude eBooks from CDI Results

25

Review our testing doc and determine next steps.

UCD: It did reduce dupes. Particularly around JSTOR, Access Medicine. Dissertations were still duplicating (things like scholarship). Found a couple of examples where a database or bib record was calling a resource a book but it was considered a report in CDI so there were duplicates. Overall, it looks promising.

UCM: Only thing that caught where excluded CDI weren’t retrieved and want to try again. Does reduce duplicates though.

UCLA: Yes, results are looking pretty good. Want to urge everyone whether your using filter by ability. Overall pretty positive change.

UCB: Had weird situation where book chapters were retrieved but could get to the title from that. Seemed to mostly work but found some instances where you got zero results. E-Resources mentioned the quality of CZ vs CDI. Sometimes the CZ records are bad but didn’t do a lot of metadata analysis.

UCSC: Wasn’t seeing a lot of duplicates. Didn’t really feel comfortable saying they saw much reduction. Do have filter by availability on. Once excluded CDI ebooks, did find some examples where records weren’t being retrieved. Did an initial search by DB ID, just to see reduction in overall retrieved. Some collections were very significant. Others it was minimal or non-existent.

UCI: Tested a handful of records having records on did reduce dups. Handful of cases where still saw dups on. Filter by availability is off.

There might be a situation where the sandbox doesn’t have updated records.

December 1 meeting look more at records that didn’t get retrieved that we expected would be retrieved.

Gem will setup meeting with eresource chair/vice-chair. Talk about the CZ vs CDI metadata quality.

Gem will double check how to determine if something is CZ vs locally cataloged.

Next Steps

5

Next meeting will be our Primo VE release review meeting.

Group will review releases notes to talk about ahead of time.

Parking Lot

Next Primo VE release meeting: November 17