2022-12-15 E-Resources Meeting Minutes
Attendees
Leigh Cunningham (Chair), St. Lawrence College
Carol McNabb, Georgian College
Cheryl Wardell, Fleming
Chris Woodley, Conestoga College
Brenda Mahoney, Algonquin College
Lindsay Bontje, Humber College
Meg Tyrell, Mohawk
Liana Giovando, PMO
Jessica Bugorski, Fanshawe
Regrets
Nicole Morgan
Lauren Rupert, Consultant
Sarah Gillard, George Brown
Laura Holton, Fanshawe College
Cindy Rigg, Niagara College
Christine Chaisson, Mohawk
Nicole Morgan, OCLS
Action Items
Discussion Items
Implementation Steering Committee update
The eResources Steering Committee has been disbanded and members from that committee have been invited to participate in the this group going forward.
Committee membership updates
Welcome Jess! - Jess agreed to chair and would welcome a co-chair if anyone wanted to join the fun. Welcome Brenda! - Brenda is representing Algonquin
eCampus Ontario open collections
MetCat Subcommittee Co-Chairs, Dijana and Stacey, are working with eCampus librarian to review records and ensure quality for discoverability. Liana is working with Ex Libris to advocate for the inclusion of this OER collection in the Alma Community Zone.
ALMA D
All colleges with Alma/Primo have access to Alma Digital. Some colleges have begun to create repositories. For example, Contestoga and St. Lawrence have begun repositories using Alma Digital.
OCLS will arrange for training opportunities with Ex Libris for staff to review functionality and use of Alma Digital in late Jan or Feb of 2023.
A project plan is being developed for the 4-5 (five if Niagara is included) colleges that plan to migrate content. Likely to be scheduled in the Summer/Fall of 2023.
The CORe User Group will likely morph into the Alma D User group that can help to define common guidelines and best practices. Sample guidelines for accepting documents into repositories, for example, will be very helpful to the colleges.
Discoverability of package collections in the NZ
Raised at our last meeting and I followed up by sending out this doc to the committee for review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Qs9kaBqugQ_-K4Hkj5huxHCHuRIvEJOGDgNB5cBcSQc/edit#heading=h.lkgwjx2ivt1r
Action: does the committee recommend option 1 or 2?
Discussion
Cheryl: Students do ask specifically for a database by name. They are being told by faculty to look for specific databases.
Lindsay: Humber prefers status quo because it is easier to explain to students.
Cheryl: Status quo (option 1) is no different than what we had with EDS, we still have to explain the difference between an “article” search and going to the A-Z Database list when looking for specific databases by name.
Carol: They spend a lot of time in our IL Sessions going over the difference between full text searching and the Database A-Z list. It may just be a “nice to have” to allow the functionality of searching Primo by database title.
Chris: The Resource Recommender
Leigh: Neither option is going to give us full discoverability. Let OCLS concentrate on other things. Individual colleges can tackle more to improve discoverab
Decision
The group preferred Option 1 - Status Quo
Maybe the committee can provide or OCLS can share instructions to the colleges on how to improve discoverability including how to:
Create local IZ solution for high impact collections (E.g., local bibs attached to a portfolio? Requires some testing/research. This would be only for access to the collection/platform, while the NZ collection would still provide access to the portfolios/items.)
Consider Resource Recommender (notes from committee meeting: this is a high maintenance solution)
ERM principles/guidelines for the NZ
Raised at our last meeting and I followed up by sending out this doc to the committee for review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qotOUdtUgvOpxDj67fr5DDrEKDQA0g3PwwqhiWMb9OM/edit#heading=h.8r1b0zm4j7rd
Action: I still must figure out format/structure for this information but regarding the content itself, does the committee approve these guidelines?
Discussion
OCLS will use these principles to conduct regular business and can then consult the committee when something does not fit these guidelines or needs additional consultation from the committee.
Leigh: Nothing that struck me as a major flag.
Chris: Seems good to me. I’ve read it through.
Lindsay: would not mind a little more time to take a look at it.
Carol: Only scanned
Decision
No decision. Discussion deferred to next meeting to give committee members more time to consider document.
ACTION ITEM: Committee members to take another read through the ERM Principles/Guidelines for NZ document and send approval by email. Respond to the original email sent by Nicole. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qotOUdtUgvOpxDj67fr5DDrEKDQA0g3PwwqhiWMb9OM/edit?usp=sharing
Renaming NZ collections
New topic
Context and questions for committee provided here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pnGS4qMtnhNecA-ajIE_i_9xSz_jHA-7xL3nX_G928I/edit?usp=sharing
Discussion
Lindsay: Humber’s preference is to not include trials in discovery at all.
Carol: Agree that trials are confusing in discovery.
Chris: I’m fine to not be notified at all! They are all improvements and just make it easier.
Decision
Happy with notification to listserve on a title by title bases. This committee recommends that trials are not added to the NZ ever.
Linking parameters documentation
New topic; or, more specifically, bringing back an old topic from the project phase
This is college-facing documentation requested at one point by the committee
Drafted here with questions for the committee’s consideration in comments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qqR8WA5UT37N9a1c1oc3d7HX8k7CbfHwqbTmyQiRNxw/edit?usp=sharing
Discussion
Chris: Will add screenshots the the Linking Paramaters Documentation from the college perspective
Leigh: not so urgent to have self-serve access.. Ie. What is my EBSCO ID? Should OCLS provide that somewhere for colleges to look up? For example, OCLS could put it in Consortia Manager. Or is it enough just to reach out to helpdesk.ocls.ca.
Cheryl: Having it in CM would be extremely helpful.
Carol: It only needs to be done at the vendor level, not the database level, right? It is not expected to provide IDs for every database.
Decision
The committee approved of the linking parameters documentation and recommend it is shared with the colleges once final edits are complete.
The committee agrees it is important to have IDs accessible and recommend that OCLS does include them in Consortia Manager at a vendor level but not necessarily every resource. They would like it in