Review the “Campus Specific ETD Processes” section. Is the information up-to-date?
Review questions posted:
Should ETDs be treated as a UC shared collection?
Should eScholarship continue to submit content to WorldCat via the DCG?
Note that only UC Merced’s ETDs receive any notable referral traffic from WorldCat.
If so, should we try to identify useful, mutually exclusive sets in order to refine the metadata mapping?
Should eScholarship be turned on in the CDI, given that it includes ETDs? Is there a way we can use the Primo VE Resource Mapping Profiles to address any issues?
Will cataloging of ETDs change with the SILS? Where are the optimal points for cataloging ETDs? What modifications in any of the involved systems could help?
What are the impacts of our decisions on end-users?
Is it possible/desirable to standardize a policy/practice on how we manage RLF records?
If we were to standardize, what would the timing be for this?
Without a RLF CKG, how do we include RLFs in future discussions about RLF records?
Is this issue so political [because of ARL record counts] that it needs to be sent to an escalation leader group? If so, which group? TSELG and ASCELG?
15 mins
John Riemer
Notes from All chairs meeting on Dec. 16th, 2020:
Liz and Sarah W talked about how they came to their decision.
Scope = Test Load.
Why? They were aware of dependencies with FF and Discovery and special collections considerations. And, they didn’t know all the issues at the time.
The phantom issue is a big one.
Reconstructing a bib is a bigger deal than removing it later.
Joe and Liz R on fulfillment decisions
Decision happened at the end of vanguard. Based on seeing the experience of canceling a request. More work will be needed in test load phase.
Additional current practice that happens at CDL (beyond suppress, don’t suppress, etc). Maintain shelving locations at CDL for Melvyl, Request. RLF records in your local catalog must be marked as non-lending. Special code in Request that removes these records from ILL.
3 considerations in the decision and they are listed in priority order.
Suppressing is the number 2 priority.
Make the shelving locations “non-requestable” to avoid getting requests for items that are not lendable.
They haven’t considered special collections in FFFG.
RMFG specified in their decision, you must designate “offsite at an RLF” not just “offsite”.
There’s a need to mediate special collection requests from RLFs. Not sure how this will work with systems like Aeon. Investigating in test load.
Jess & Josephine from Discovery on the impacts on end-user:
looked for user pain points.
consulting with partner FGs on usability.
2 other groups were looking at RLF materials - how would a user engage with a serial title with split issues is one example.
Questions from J & J:
Which campuses suppress or don’t suppress? Liz M will survey members for Test Load.
Will RLF get their own IZ? Not for go-live but the RLF Configuration group is working on that decision.
How do records get into the RLF? Currently, it’s done differently by NRLF and SRLF. Proof-of-concept to see what’s possible during Test Load would be great per Lynne G.
Xiaoli: RLF is not just workflow or technology – there’s a political component. If it’s political, it may be beyond the FGs to make this decision.
Xiaoli: Only records with OCLC numbers are allowed into the NZ. Many special collections don’t have OCLC numbers. How does this affect discovery and resource sharing? Does it need to go to an escalation group? Some pieces could be handled well by the FGs. Others would get escalated.
Xiaoli: Workflow testing - current workflow to RLF has a lot of redundancies. Can we make RLF materials shelf-ready? Bar code so they can be scanned in easily? Can campuses provide this service to RLFs to reduce the RLF work? It would mean using the same bar code system. This may not be MVP, but could be considered post go-live.
Per Lynne, bar codes are not as much of an issue if you use Caiasoft (the inventory management system used at both RLFs. Using this software means that the barcode is no longer the “address” for where a book lives in the stacks).
RLFs are open to making things smoother and understanding where the value add is.
User experience: The test load is a good opportunity to see what the patron experience is.
We are now in one system with all records available in one place.
Next steps…do testing and revisit this conversation. Consider adding RLF testing to Confluence so it’s more public. (Discuss in PPC)
Per Josephine, NA07 will be in the new URL for your primo VE instance in test load.
4
SILS Minimal Viable Product
Define our group’s vision of SILS minimal viable product
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu