2021-3-18 Meeting notes

Attendees

Jo Anne Newyear-Ramirez, UC Berkeley
Xiaoli Li, UC Davis
John Philip Renaud, UC Irvine
John Riemer, UCLA
Jim Dooley, UC Merced
Tiffany Moxham, UC Riverside (note taker)
Aislinn Sotelo, UC San Diego (note taker)
Lidia Uziel, UC Santa Barbara
Sarah Lindsey, UC Santa Cruz
Holly Eggleston, California Digital Library
Ilieva, Polina, UC San Francisco

Not attending

Discussion items

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	Update and checking	Discuss questions and upcoming milestones	20 mins		Marcive: Final cost-share below are the notes from Marcive which I shared with the group last Oct: Each library is going to have to reach out to Charity Fleming at Charityf@marcive.com to cancel their subscription. She will work on providing pro-rated quotes for the libraries whose subscription ends before June 30^th, and credits for the libraries who have renewed and their subscription runs past June 30^th 2021. Here is info for each library: a. Davis will need a shortened subscription. b. Santa Barbara will also need a shortened subscription period, but their sub expires December 2020. c. Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Cruz and San Diego all have subscriptions that expire June 30, 2021, so they just need to not renew their subscriptions when they receive a notice. They would just mark cancel on the form. They can also cancel now with Charity to avoid confusion with their purchasing office in the future. d. Berkeley can choose to ask for a prorated output for one month as their subscription expires May 2021. Or they can cancel like the others. e. Irvine and Merced can cancel and receive a credit or refund as their subscriptions run past the July 2021 date. f. Santa Cruz has a different subscription than the other libraries. They subscribe to the Enhanced GPO Database Service which also provides records for print and other tangible items. Their subscription also expires June 2021. They may want to continue that subscription for those records, but adjust their FDLP profile to remove electronic records as they would be receiving those with this merged account. GOBI: Final cost share Everyone will get Gold-level (fully cataloged) records Each campus needs to work with GOBI to set up the process Might want to wait until AEFG and RMFG have made their recommendations for processing these records/orders Do anyone know who the payment works?		Everyone: see notes and let your campus know what needs to happen with regard to your MARCIVE subscription
2	CRL catalog	Questions Do you support continuing to provide access to CRL content in the main UC discovery tool? Does the strategy likely to be needed for accomplishing this seem sound to you? Do you have any concerns about the effort? Are there other stakeholders to consult about this? Do you want to endorse this CRL content proposal and refer it to RMFG to figure out the details of making it happen?	30 mins	John	CDI Collection List: CRL catalog is on the list The problem other EXL libraries have experienced: https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma/suggestions/41644846-add-ability-to-prevent-cdi-content-from-appearing ARL libraries pay to have CRL holdings available/discoverable (via OCLC holdings symbol). We did this with Melvyl before, should we do it again in Alma? Yes! CDI: it’s possible that the CRL CDI will be in Primo by default. It does look like the number of titles in the CDI collection sounds right. Should consult with other group(s) in the future to understand CDI more fully Is search ok, do the records need to actually be brought into the NZ? Goal is to get them into Primo, not necessarily in NZ Any concerns for fulfillment/ILL? Should try to explore lending for users What about PSELG? What services does CRL provide its members and can those be served by records that only live in Primo? Access to holdings, including borrowing Digitization projects Shared collection development How many UCs are CRL members? Everyone except UCI and UCR Should we check on a possible shared membership? SCLG can bring it, no need for it to come from TSELG		Xiaoli and John will draft questions for PPC JoAnne will check to see how UCB currently accesses CRL content John will locate some current Melvyl titles and compare against current Primo SCLG members will ask about a shared membership
3	Homework
4	Parking lot
5		Total	60/60

Meeting Discussion

Xiaoli: Goals and Philosophy

Acceptable quality - what level is acceptable
Limit manual work and multi-campus/CDL workload
Support Discovery
ETD is a unique UC collection and this should be considered in making decisions

Campus Perspectives

CDL (LISA): Agrees with goals. Provided some contextual thoughts

· EScholarship and OCLC – added confusion and complexity of materials

· Opportunity to ignore the intersection and instead think of “ideal” output

· We don’t have to have the OCLC connection gateway

· Happy for it not to continue – doesn’t need to be continued

· Don’t need to replicate what we have but need to think about ideal and what works for each campus

UCI: ETD’s are already streamlined with the digitization by ProQuest of 1965+ dissertation therefore importance is on big issues and not the occasional exception. Okay to accept some granularity loss for improved workflows.

UCB: Wants a UC collection that is streamlined and simply.

Re-iterated email about using edited ProQuest for NZ and suggestion to do edits in OCLC (later UCSD explained their timing issues around this option).

Expressed interest in understanding any duplication issues for patrons

UCM: Key desire is University affiliation (502 or equivalent) and ability to edit Master record

NOTE: university affiliation is in ProQuest data - how it shows in a catalog is about cross-walking

Xiaoli provided a local example of what their cross walk using ProQuest and template data could looks like and explained that the template information can be automatic

UCR: Changed their workflow in last year. Turned on CDI in 2018. Not adding any additional ETD data due to pragmatic workload balancing and issues around duplication (up to 4).

Main current workflow miss: Rich subject data including terms not yet in standards.

Must have: University affiliation

UCR/UCSC: Both happy to go with final workflow decisions

UCSB: no local MARC records- using MERRITT to ingest from PCI

UCSD: Edit local MARC records and then aim to get edited records into OCLC before OCLC harvests from e-scholarship otherwise they have duplication issues

UCSF: no ETD workflow. CDL handles it.

General Conversation

CDI records are different than MARC records

Escholarship every item as an affiliation

ETD in CDI do not show campus affiliation

CDI is what is found in OAI-PMH

Everyone wants the 502 affiliation to show in records

Escalation group is to look into bigger picture

Precise workflow should be decided elsewhere

Concern if we don’t put our then there will be a UC wide collection but we would lose University affiliation

Questions developed to determine decisions

What is the importance of OCLC records having only a UC collection status rather than a UC campus status?

A: All concur as long as 502 is in the record no problem

All have ETD submitted through ProQuest with student submitted metadata

Different campuses do different amounts of metadata improvement-are you willing to have a standardized output with an agreed conversion standardization?

A: YES

ACTION ITEM: Xiaoli to ask Resource Mgt functional group to create a standardized template for MARC record creation incorporated required fields. The template will utilize ProQuest XML fields and additional fields e.g. items to be added in template form such as institution. Xiaoli has a local example.

Once records are created then what?

Presumption of this question: Agreed standardized conversion template in place i.e. CDL ProQuest record information + some standardized information

If standardized: YES to placement in NZ and NOT IZ (no dissenters)

ACTION ITEM

Xiaoli: ask RMFG who and how this would be managed

Do we want Escholarship synchronization service with OCLC?

Aim to limit duplication so should stop Escholarship records to OCLC

A: NO we don’t want to keep doing this as long as we can use the MERRITT records in the standardized conversion as discussed

CDI: Central Discovery Index: Primo direct search: do we want to turn on escholarship?

Ex Libris harvests metatdata from e-scholarship for CDI

Thoughts: CDI search should be turned on for all other content that ETD is available there but there will be duplication it is about how that shows in the catalog that matters.

A: Yes we do!

Other

CDL: what about the other non-ETD material in escholarship for which metadata comes from authors directly: who is considering that?

Technical Services EL

2021-3-18 Meeting notes

Attendees

Not attending

Discussion items

Future agenda items

Related content