Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device.
Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
ERES has recommended that CDL activate these two electronic collections in the NZ (CDI only, “Link in Record”) for the 9 campuses that are CRL members:
CRL Catalog (Collection ID: 613780000000001458)
CRL Journals and Newspapers (Collection ID: 61670816660000041)
Proposal: Discovery to become responsible for identifying and implementing inclusive language improvements in Primo.
Is CDI metadata a concern? We do have some control over how it’s displayed. Would this be Discovery’s responsibility, or maybe ERES?
We can look for issues with clarity (cleaning up jargon - e.g. availability statuses), but we’re less experienced with harmful or unwelcoming language. Are there any examples?
We are working on harmonization of accessibility facets, but this is not a “language” concern.
We are happy to review reported concerns, and explore distributing at the NZ level.
A report on NZ problems might be useful, for this team and others.
Zoe will reach out to OT with high-level questions and invitation to attend Discovery meeting.
6
LG: Digital Collections campus reports
Provide feedback to LG on feasibility and timeline for producing campus reports, and any questions we have for them.
15
In 2022, SILS Digital Collections Project Team produced a report on digital collection status. Now, we want “a status report across campuses: what choices have been made, how effective they’ve been, what challenges or trade-offs have arisen, and what might be promising practices to share.”
Overview / Scope
Which digital collections the campus considers for exposure in the campus discovery system (e.g. institutional repository, digital library, special collections, research data, web archives).
Whether exposure is comprehensive (i.e. everything ingested) or selective (only particular collections, formats, or “featured” subsets).
Technical / Metadata Strategy
What metadata mappings, level of description (collection vs. item) and linking approaches are used to integrate digital objects into the discovery environment.
Whether these digital collection records are integrated with “regular” catalog records in Alma, or presented in a separate cluster / facet / “digital collection” or “featured collections” view.
Are these collections cataloged in MARC, taken from the Central Discovery Index (CDI), harvested, etc.?
How do you handle duplication of records?
How identifiers or linking (e.g. PURL, DOI, repository linkbacks) are handled (i.e. from discovery result to the actual digital object).
User Interface / UX Decisions
How digital collections are surfaced in the UI (e.g. special browse facets, separate “collections” tabs, “digital” labels, etc.).
Whether there are mechanisms for “featured collections,” curated displays, or spotlighting within discovery.
Any user interface trade-offs or constraints encountered (e.g. performance, filtering, relevance, display clutter).
How often the campus harvests or catalogs new digital content (frequency, triggers).
How updates, deletions, versioning, provenance, or link rot are handled.
Any challenges in coordinating with source systems (repositories, archives, data platforms) for metadata consistency or technical compatibility.
Metrics, Monitoring & User Feedback
What metrics or analytics you track to assess the visibility, use, or success of digital collections in discovery (e.g. search impressions, clicks, full view usage).
Any user feedback or usability testing outcomes relevant to the integration of digital collections.
Challenges, Trade-offs, and Lessons Learned
What are the biggest technical, policy, metadata, or organizational challenges you have faced.
What decisions or compromises did you have to make (e.g. limiting scope, simplifying mappings, delaying refreshes).
What strategies or solutions have worked well (or not).
Opportunities for Coordination / Best Practices
Are there areas where a shared SILS-level guideline, tool, or service might help (e.g. metadata crosswalks, harvesting pipelines, shared UI components)?
What features or enhancements would you like to see in Primo VE (or the discovery infrastructure) to better support digital collections.
Next Steps / Aspirations
What you hope to do going forward (plans, pilot experiments, roadmap).
What support or collaboration you would like from SILS or other campuses.
There is a google form already created with many of these questions. Can we just distribute this?
One question Discovery could help with: how discoverable are collections in Primo?
Distinction between discovery ingest (Primo) and Alma Digital.
Report mentions ingest from Calisphere into Alma - not just Primo
Zoe will reach out to LG with high-level questions and invitation to attend Discovery meeting.