2021-4-15 Meeting notes
- Xiaoli Li
- Lidia Uziel (Unlicensed)
- John Riemer
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
Aislinn Sotelo, UC San Diego
Lidia Uziel, UC Santa Barbara (note taker)
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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Update and checking | Discuss questions and upcoming milestones | 10 mins |
| No updates |
|
|
| 2 | 2nd quarterly UC-wide SILS Town | John will serve as a panelist during a roundtable discussion titled “What Changes Will UC Library Search Bring to Library Culture and Operations,” taking place on Monday, April 19 (11:10 – 11:35 a.m.) during the quarterly UC-wide SILS Town. Here is a preliminary list of questions that will be asked as part of the discussion:
| 15 mins | John | John’s draft responses:  John asked for feedback from the group on his answers. Question about panelists, if there will be a person representing Public Services, and the answer is yes. Everyone thinks John’s answers look great. |
|
|
| 3 | Legacy ETDS | Is there any interest in moving your legacy ETDs into NZ? If yes, how? | 10 mins | all | Currently working on an ETD workflow, and the question is what to do with legacy ETDs? They are not necessarily all OA but the majority is accessible via ProQuest. Tier 1 license/subscription to ProQuest digital dissertations provides system-wide access to majority of the content; campuses don't necessarily have access to all legacy ETDs that have not been digitized and w/out permissions; lack of permissions is a major issue. Some campuses digitized their legacy ETDs and that content is now accessible locally. One campus digitized it via Google project (UC Davis?) Legacy ETDs is a complex issue; we need time and capacity to work on it, etc. Cut off period (i.e., June and July): we will use it to work on this type of projects | Determine the current situation at each campus for born-digital and print ETDs, including permission status, digitization, etc. | First step: collect the information UC system-wide. Xiaoli will create a spreadsheet to record the data. The deadline: gather information by the 3rd week of June. The actual work will happen after the migration. |
| 4 | Draft MVP document | Review our MVP items on the list to ensure the information is current and complete. | 10 mins | all | The group reviewed the spreadsheet and discussed to whom assign various tasks: SCLG will review the contracts (Gobi, Marcive, etc.,) annually and will approve renewals. ETDs workflows: one time activity, our group will make suggestions and recommendations; RMG will implement the workflow. CRL records: As a policy matter, we decided that we want CRL records in the NZ (day one), it is a priority; do we need to sign a new system-wide contract with CRL? CDL is handling it right now. The implementation will be assigned to RMG. Legacy UC ETDs: we need collect the information to make decision and we need 6 months to do it.
|
|
|
| 5 | CDI | Has your campus talked about this? Do you have concerns about which model (Easyactive vs. Fullyflexible) UC should implement? | 15 mins |
| (Go Live) CDI: Use FullyFlexible or EasyActive activation model CDI impacts users, patron services and technical services workflows. All institutions in a consortium must use the same CDI activation model, either EasyActive or FullyFlexible. Consequently, we are collecting the information about any potential concerns that our group might have about going with either EasyActive or FullyFlexible. This question was discussed at the Co-Chairs groups, then PPC group discussed it and they asked Discovery Group for feedback. Ultimately, the recommendation will be provided from Discovery Group to PPC. In general, it looks like Discovery/Public Services Group prefers Fully Flexible; Discovery/Technical Services Group prefers EasyActive. Campuses agree that a certain amount of technical service work is required to activate resources and from that perspective, EasyActive is a preference; especially given the fact that our staffing in technical services is limited. Note: switching from the EasyActive model to the FullyFlexible model has never been done/tested; Ex Libris is not saying that they couldn’t switch us from our current EasyActive to FullyFlexible, but they never done it before. Each campus needs to determine what’s their preference: do they want to spend their time on deactivating or activating resources? |
|
|
| 6 | Homework |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | Parking lot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
| 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?
A Public Services Escalation Group as part of OA discussions
Future agenda items
Be the first to like this
Write a comment...
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu