Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

2022-09-08 E-Resources Meeting Minutes

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Moved from 2022-08-18

Attendees

  • Leigh Cunningham (Chair), St. Lawrence College

  • Carol McNabb, Georgian College

  • Chris Woodley, Conestoga College

  • Nicole Morgan, OCLS

  • Lindsay Bontje, Humber College

  • Mary Anne Reinhard, Algonquin

  • Christine Chiasson, Mohawk

  • Meg Tyrell, Mohawk

  • Aura Hill, PMO

  • Lauren Rupert, Consultant

Regrets

  • Laura Holton, Fanshawe College

  • Cheryl Wardell, Fleming College

  • Cindy Rigg, Niagara College

  • Joanne Qin, St. Clair College

  • Sarah Gillard, George Brown

  • Liana Giovando, PMO

Action Items from Previous Meeting

  • Lindsay Bontje to create a briefing note for Identifying Best Practices for Setting up Deposit Account Funds in an Institution Zone - there is no rush on this one
  • Aura Hill to create the documentation page to record recommendations/principles made by this committee
  • Everyone is to review the terms of reference for the E-Resources Steering Committee and the E-Resources Subcommittee, the information for which will be posted on a new Confluence page.
  • Aura Hill and Lauren Rupert to set up the new Confluence page: “Identifying Future E-Resources/Acquisitions Work” and share the link with the relevant members.

Discussion Items

Welcome, Christine and Meg from Mohawk!

A big welcome from the E-resources subcommittee! We are thrilled for both of you to be joining us!

Subcommittee Chair Update (items from ISC)

There is no new information to provide as there was no ISC meeting this week.

Metadata and Cataloguing- The Metadata and Cataloguing subcommittee is continuing their work on creating a publically accessible guide for the CLO Metadata Standards - they hope for the guide to be made public very soon.

Systems, Analytics and Data - The Systems, Analytics and Data subcommittee continue to do research into pre-made reports that can be used collaboratively between the colleges. This subcommittee is paying special attention to reports that can replicate the reports used for the CLO Annual Survey Reports in the hopes of streamlining work and improving time efficiency for colleges.

General

Switch to Support - As the Switch to Support date moves closer, the ISC continues to examine how Basecamp will be archived and how long we will have access to the view-only functions of Basecamp.

Communications Platform - In the midst of Basecamp moving to a Switch to Support status, we are examining new options for a College-to-College Communications platform. We are hoping to have a presentable solution soon.

Missing e-resources (NM)

This topic is a clarifying point on the discussion item “Selecting the next collections for OCLS Import Profiles" from our meeting on 28 July 2022”. This topic will a focus of this subcommittee for the next few months, and we will continue working on it.
The subcommittee will be selecting new resources to make import profiles on. At this stage, we do not have any import profiles selected or have any import profiles outstanding that we are working on. Safteyhub has been flagged as a contender.
To date, import profiles for the following have been completed: Curio, CoD, and ACF.

Metadata decisions for NZ collections (NM)

  • Some questions/acknowledgements that arose in the discussion:

    • OCLS may not be the most fitting group to make these decisions - as they may not be the most familiar with who the users are and how resources are being used.

    • How should directories be managed? Would there be one collection for each directory?

    • If we are to include notes on resources, who should be the ones putting those notes on the resources?

  • Question: Is there no way for an IZ level customization to take place

    • There is. However, it isn’t an ‘easy’ solution. One would have to either (1) opt out of the NZ to make the changes or (2) they would have to duplicate the IZ resource records, make changes and delete the original/unaltered ones.

  • Question: Who is the best qualified/has the authority to answer the metadata questions for the NZ?

    • There may not be a particular group who does hold this authority. So, we will deal with the questions to the best of our abilities. The questions will be brought back to this group, where we will discuss them and decide on the ‘best’ answer for each of the questions. Only the first instance of each of the questions will be brought to the group to discuss. From the discussions, we will create a list of the accepted answers to the questions. These answers will be known as “principles,” which can guide/act as recommendations for similar situations that may arise. The answer does not need to happen in the first instance of its presentation - it will be acceptable to pause questions so that members external to this committee can be consulted.

  • It is important to this subcommittee that all answers/recommendations be made readily available so that other individuals can remain informed/updated.

  • Conclusion: As these metadata questions arise, they will be advised by the new “E-Resource Management Guidelines for Page 1+”. If the question has not been answered yet, it will come to this subcommittee for discussion, and then the decision will be published on the “E-Resource Management Guidelines for Page 1+” page.

Questions Discussed:

  1. What about licence or access notes?

    1. Who to contact - Possibly, Criterion on Demand. It was suggested that the College libraries not be consulted.

    2. Notes - (applying to CLEAR Standards specifically) any complicated notes that are recommended should be in library-only view and not be visible to the library user, only to the library staff.

    3. How do we decide who gets notes and who does not get notes/how are notes added to records?

  2. When there are multiple options for access URL, and collection name, who decides? (E.g., ReferenceGroup: multiple collections, one for each directory, or one collection for all directories?)

    1. (E.g., COD “The licence terms for this product stipulate that usage is for educational purposes only”)

      1. See answer given for question 1

  • ACTION ITEM: Aura Hill to create the documentation page to record recommendations/principles made by this committee - possibly titled “E-Resource Management Guidelines for Page 1+”

Future role and responsibilities of this Subcommittee

  • Nicole offered us a comprehensive comparison in the meeting between the composition and scope differences between the E-Resources Steering Committee and the E-Resouces Subcommittee.

    • The E-Resouces Steering Committee meets with less frequency (Once a month)

    • It is composed of: One (1) individual from OCLS concerned with E-Resource Services, a chair from the colleges, and four (4) regional members - one (1) for each ‘region’ of Ontario as OCLS has established.
      The most notable difference in the composition of the two bodies is that not everyone on the Steering Committee is involved in the Page 1+ Project, whereas everyone on the Subcommittee is.

    • The E-Resources Steering Committee is concerned with high-level strategies and how to fulfill college needs (this includes prioritization of certain topics and deciding what topics need to be addressed in the upcoming year)

    • The E-Resources Subcommittee is more concerned with the minutia of e-resources, such as user experiences with e-resources, systems questions, the functions of access within the system, etc.

  • There are many discussions still happening in regards to the future of subcommittees, primarily each subcommittee's purpose as we transition to the next stage of the Page 1+ Project.

  • It is possible that the E-Resouces Steering Committee and the E-Resources Subcommittee will be combined as needs are re-evaluated.

    • In the interim, we can create a list of what kind of people we think the new committee may need and what projects/topics would benefit from the committee's attention.

  • ACTION ITEM: Everyone is to review the terms of reference for the E-Resources Steering Committee and the E-Resources Subcommittee, the information for which will be posted on a new Confluence page.
    (The new Confluence page will be concerned with establishing what tasks/projects could be beneficial to colleges in the future going forward. The focus is on identifying the work - the finer points can and will be solidified at a later date)

  • ACTION ITEM: Aura Hill and Lauren Rupert to set up the new Confluence page: “Identifying Future E-Resources/Acquisitions Work” and share the link with the relevant members.

Any other Business? (AoB)

 

  • No labels