2021-07-13 Meeting notes

LHR bullet point in downgrading - need for LHRs for non-UC borrowing is the one question remaining item for clarification when consulting with Fulfillment.
EUOS does not see need for a notification in the new stepped-down version to let folks know about changes (they will put messages in the current Melvyl. Discovery team recognizes researchers who have bookmarked Melvyl will be redirected here. A message here could be helpful. Something like, “UC Library Search will replace Melvyl. See this website for more details.”

Date

13 Jul 2021, 10am-11:30am

Attendees

Lisa Ngo, UC Berkeley
Jared Campbell, UC Davis
Ellen Augustiniak, UC Irvine
Elizabeth Salmon, UC Merced
Sharon Shafer, UC Los Angeles
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside
Heather Smedberg, UC San Diego [Today’s Notetaker]
Josephine Tan, UC San Francisco (co-chair)
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz (co-chair) [Today’s Timekeeper]
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
1	Updates			Jess	FYI -Jess working on a draft of decision page for excluding items from Discovery network. UCSC and others started work to develop search profiles to accomplish this work, but the questions and testing were not resolved before the lockout. No updates from other committees at SILS project level.
2	Functionality Checklist (Actually, Data Review/Acceptance checklist)				Refer to ExL's GoLive checklist and our work off of that Should we create a basic checklist, i.e., "does the NZ appear", etc? Critical data testing: verify configurations, logo there, facets and filters in place, search profiles present, GES links, norm rules for display of MARC fields, and reporting on response time.
3	BCWD Decision Page				BCWD Decisi.on Page LHR bullet point in downgrading - whether there is a need for LHRs for non-UC borrowing is the one question remaining will ask for clarification when consulting with Fulfillment. LHRs not needed for UC borrowing. EUOS does not see need for a notification in the new stepped-down version to let folks know about changes (they will put messages in the current Melvyl. Discovery team recognizes researchers who have bookmarked Melvyl will be redirected here. A message could be helpful. Something like, “UC Library Search will replace Melvyl. See this website for more details.” Discovery will send recommended text to CDL for inclusion.
4	EUOS Infographic				See EUOS’s infographic drafts. Recommendations: Remove “print + digital resources” line recommend moving the Beyond UC Libraries to display fully within the blue circle recommend changing “All UC Libraries” to “UC Libraries” because some libraries are not represented, and they’re important gaps (e.g. Hastings & Berkeley Law, other libraries at Berkeley) Possible to swap out “Local Campus Library” with each campuses name (and possibly also the building with campus logo)? Have “UC Library Search” or the image itself hyperlinked to campus' own UC Library Search homepage make sure alt-text is present for accessibility
5	“Inappropriate” terminology (subject filters) in PrimoVE Heather’s email (from a presentation)				We’ll be able to control our own local records BUT… CDI records may bring in some inappropriate Subject filters terms Look at Ellen shared CSS code email (from Francois R. on listserv)- hides it from Subject facet How quickly is ExL removing these? Does Discovery FG write a policy of how to remove such terms - report it to ExL AND hide it locally. See ExL’s DEI Policy Regarding Subject Headings in CDI] ExL’s stopwords list Should we be proactively finding these terms ourselves, report to ExL so that they can scrub it/hide it, hide it locally Look at Catherine’s mtg minutes Questions/Comments from Discovery Discussion 7/13: Process for CDI data is that when things are reported to ExL for stop list, they will reach out to content providers and ask them to change. If those CP do not make changes, ExL can suppress terms on that stop list, but it will still exist in data. What roles can we play in improving situation? Some ideas: consult/conduit for reporting to ExL and building up stop list proactively, help with training public services to know/develop workflows for reporting (locally vs to ExL; when suppression would be managed in CSS vs via reporting to ExL). Collaborate with RMFG to develop workflows for reporting problems ad hoc AND reporting additional terms to the stop list, etc. (including subject headings but also terms used in other parts of description). Are there other groups, like CKGs, already working on this issue to coordinate with? What kind of communication can we/should we share with users about what the process is, and about when we make changes?	“Angela began reaching out to colleagues to learn more about the issue and find solutions, resulting in a ticket being submitted to ExLibris Support Portal by Stephanie Roach of San Mateo County Community College District. ExLibris has responded by creating a policy regarding subject headings in CDI records, and started a stoplist of offensive and racist terminology to exclude from display in the subject headings. ExLibris customers can email Anti-Bias@exlibrisgroup.com to ask that other terminology be considered for the stoplist.”
6	FYI - Draft of decision page for excluding items from Discovery network(Jess working on this)				Custom data scopes to exclude local content: ExL delivery will mirror what was developed in test and people will see other campuses equipment, etc for the first couple months. Will need to test in sandboxes for the development of these customized scopes. Collaborate with our local RM teams to keep moving this forward - they are in charge of deciding MARC field
7	Check Ins	Discuss updates/problems/testing	30 min	All	Discussed workflows for reporting problems / use of report a problem links. For most campuses, this work is still being polished. Follow along with Gem’s questions in Basecamp about unresolved NZ/IZ FRBR suppression rules process, whether rules already run will carry through or need to run again https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/messages/3691479204#__recording_3886054212 Library and Location facets (and Held by Library). Must be working Aug 1 as practice - keep advocating that this is essential as needed. Discussed roles and responsibilities of this group post-go-live - Dec.
8	Next Meeting	Prep for next meeting			Check-in on Mondays if we need to meet and will continue with discussions as needed.
9	Parking Lot/Q&A	Save these issues for future discussion & comments			Libguides Testing plan Ebook ILL lending as it relates to discovery and limiting to availability. Questions/comments: