Date
, 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 [Today’s Notetaker]
Michael Yonezawa, UC Riverside
Heather Smedberg, UC San Diego
Josephine Tan, UC San Francisco (co-chair) [Today’s Timekeeper]
Jess Waggoner, UC Santa Cruz (co-chair)
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 | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Updates from other SILS groups | Share relevant items | 10 min | Josephine Sarah | Internal Training Subgroup: Fill out the Primo VE Workshop questions sheet in preparation for May workshop. (Focus on UC DFG authors for this sheet) PPC: Three decisions approved (Go-live) Local 856 bibliographic data Key takeaways: schedule for 856 removal post-migration, finding aids and other 856 42s as portfolios is a local decision for migration PPC/FG decisions that impact EUOS - keep these questions in mind Governance Model: Fully representational vs. representative governance is being discussed. Expect more finalized model next month |
| |
| 2 | RLF Records | Next steps on handling RLF records | 20 min | All | Jess & Josephine met with RLF Supergroup on 4/12. Discussions finalized to create draft decision page combining RMFG and Fulfillment decision pages: (Go-live) RLF Bibliographic, holdings, and item records in campus IZs This model is paying per bib record. We want to minimize phantom bibs. More questions about analytics need to be answered. Perhaps in a process after go-live. Q: Decision to suppress local holding: what problem are they trying to address? A: Enduser or fulfillment issue. They don’t want folks to find local records for NRLF materials and not see a way to access them. They will not see the request for interlibrary loan link. Special collections materials are different because their request process is different (AEON request is being looked at and how they look for local RLF records as long as the terms of use are correct) Liz and Heather discussed analyzing serial records.
| It is not in UC DFG’s hands to solve the analytics/RLF issue. Share Discovery FG’s feedback to Suppressing local holdings for RLF records as a rough draft with the hope of obtaining clear questions | Get more information on the terms of use for special collections materials being request via AEON Ellen Augustiniak share questions about the suppressing local holdings to Josephine Tan (Unlicensed) so she can share them with other groups |
| 3 | UC-eLinks | Vote on decision | 20 min | All |
Josephine comments:Positive, Color familiar, Branding included, Slightly different shape and size | ‘Get it at UC’ is winning | Josephine Tan (Unlicensed) Ask graphic designer produce
|
| 4 | CDI | Discuss EasyActive vs. Fully Flexible | 25 min | All | The PM’s have created a draft decision page for (Go Live) CDI: Use FullyFlexible or EasyActive activation model. Final decision will be made by PPC. PSELG has offered their help for anything related to CDI and patron services experience. PPC has asked DFG to articulate our end user concerns: Discovery’s Concerns re: CDI document Basecamp ticket - How to make CDI collections in test not searchable. A: You can not in the EZ active model make a collection not searchable. You can hide them via dropdown box. | Josephine Tan (Unlicensed) When does PPC want the document articulating our end user concerns | |
| 5 | Check Ins | Discuss updates/problems/testing | 15 min | All | Opportunity to check in on local implementation:
| ||
| 6 | Next Meeting | Prep for next meeting | |||||
| 7 | Parking Lot/Q&A | Save these issues for future discussion & comments |
|
|
Questions/comments:
|
|