Page Comparison

Invitees

• Leigh Cunningham (Chair), St. Lawrence College

• Carol McNabb, Georgian College

• Cheryl Wardell, Fleming College

• Chris Woodley, Conestoga College

• Nicole Morgan, OCLS (for Holly Savari)

• Joanne Qin, St. Clair College

• Laura Holton, Fanshawe College

• Lindsay Bontje, Humber College

• Mary Anne Reinhard, Algonquin

• Sarah Gillard, George Brown

• Aura Hill, PMO

• Liana Giovando, PMO

Regrets

Holly Savari

Action Items from Previous Meeting

•  Liana Giovando to send out email to college liaisons about populating All to continue revising/adding items to the list by end of day Monday, Nov 22nd: Collections not represented in the Community Zone table
•  Leigh Cunningham (Unlicensed) to create draft Briefing Note for comments/notes as people do research Everyone to add to add a column for “Content Type” and area to identify collections that are in the CZ but do not have satisfactory records/metadata to the Collections not represented in the Community Zone table
•  Everyone to share applicable research/info by putting a link/summary of information in the briefing notethe Notes for Briefing Note - eResources NOT in Community Zone.
•  Liana Giovando to continue drafing the /wiki/spaces/CIS/pages/311656449 that will provide a summary of this issue with recommendations for an informed decision based on research (and consult with OCLS).

Discussion Items

1. Collections not represented in the Community Zone - Update

The committee reviewed the list of Collections not represented in the Community Zone

Many contributions have been added. It is quite a long list! The “subscribing colleges” column may not be complete.

A few people still need to revisit the list. OCLS has not yet contributed and will do so soon.

Some contributions list collections that are in the community zone but have no title information or details. This inspired a conversation regarding what to do for those collections that are in the CZ but not well represented. It is likely a separate project to figure out what to do with collections that are in the CZ but not sufficient for our libraries.

Next steps

We will consider categorizing these resource. For example, “website” vs. things with “title level information” or by types of content like video content.

Maybe include functionality to sort by “vendor” and sort by the number of institutions impacted (Subscribed Colleges)

ACTION ITEM: All to continue revising/adding items to the list by end of day Monday.

ACTION ITEM: Leigh to add a column for “Content Type”

ACTION ITEM: Leigh to add a column for Collections that are in the Community Zone but not well represented.

2. Briefing 1 - eResources in Community Zone

The committee began collaboration on the first draft of a briefing note : /wiki/spaces/CIS/pages/311656449

There is also a section in the eRAcq Committee Pages to capture notes on the Briefing Note: Notes for Briefing Note - eResources NOT in Community Zone

The Committee is aiming to have this BN finalized by the end of the Dec. 9th meeting but it may take longer if surveys are required.

ACTION ITEM: Liana to continue draft of the eRexources NOT in the Alma Community Zone Briefing Note that will provide a summary of this issue with recommendations for an informed decision based on research.

Workflow/Research necessary to complete this Briefing Note:

1. Identify collections NOT in the CZ (Collections not represented in the Community Zone ) - mostly done

2. Identify low-hanging fruit to prioritize:

   1. Collections that do NOT require title-level discoverability - Do we need to create a survey?

      • Database-level records can be created in the NZ or IZs (high-level records with minimal metadata)

      • OCLS will create and maintain Database-level records in the NZ for resources represented in ERMA

      • Question regarding responsibility for the remaining collections (i.e. the colleges’ independent subscriptions)

   2. Collections that DO require title-level access, and vendor can provide high-quality MARC records - Can we create a list of collections that have MARC records?

      • Consult with metadata subcommittee re. next steps

3. Develop an approach for remaining collections

   1. Determine responsibility

   2. Determine priority (e.g. how many institutions want the collection discoverable?)

   3. Consider interim workarounds (e.g. create database-level records records?)

Questions:

1. What do we do now as individual colleges?

2. How do we determine what “good enough” is? Do we engage the MetCat Subcommittee in this decision? Can we get them to establish standards.

3. How do we determine priority for collections to be added to the NZ?

   1. number of subscribed colleges - if 12 or more subscribe, it is automatically a priority.

   2. Maybe send a survey to colleges asking them to each prioritize collections in the list we have now.

   3. Identify collections that are easy to include (ie have a good set of Marc records).

Network Considerations - Approach for research?

...

Deferred to a later meeting

...