GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting

October 23, 2013

The Cataloging & Metadata Team met via Webex on October 23, 2013.  Members present were Erin Grant (team leader), Linda Jones, Amy Eklund, Adam Kubik, Guy Frost, Kathy Adams, Kelly Holt, Jenifer Marquardt, Neil Hughes, Andy Carter, Debra Skinner, Mary-Frances Hansard, Jin Guo, Britni Jones, Susan Wynne.  Some other catalogers from UGA joined the meeting as guests.

1.  Reports Wishlist

The team has been compiling a list of cataloging reports we would like to see available from the next system.  Erin Grant will send the complete list to the Reports team leader at the end of next week (11/1).  Team members should continue working on the shared list.  Erin will de-duplicate the list before submitting.  

2.  Survey

The team is planning a survey for any USG technical services librarians and staff to submit feedback on required and desired features or functionality in a future system.  Susan Wynne, Jenifer Marquardt, and Linda Jones drafted a survey, which the team is currently reviewing and editing.

Cathy Jeffrey’s Collaborative Technical Services Team is composing a few questions to add on to our survey.  We plan to distribute the survey broadly within the USG technical services community, and will encourage everyone who is interested to respond to the survey, and/or send comments to a member of the planning team.  The possibility of combining our survey with that of the Acquisitions/Serials group was raised; Erin will follow up with that team.

The survey should be launched no later than Oct. 31 to allow about 2 weeks to collect responses and incorporate them into our first assignment, due Nov. 30.

The Cataloging & Metadata Team and/or other USG groups will also consider ways to solicit feedback from public services and other non-technical services librarians and staff on their requirements later in this process.  

3.  Scenarios and the Introductory Description (initial version due Nov. 30)

The group reviewed the Instructions for the Introductory Description and discussed the level of depth or detail that is appropriate for this stage of the process. The introductory description should stay fairly broad, but we did not feel it was necessary to be as brief as in sample RFPs, as our text will likely be edited.  The background and details are critical to consider and gather, but may not be part of this initial document.