GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting Notes
November 19, 2013
The Cataloging & Metadata Team met via Webex on November 19, 2013. Members present were Erin Grant, Adam Kubik, Amy Eklund, Andy Carter, Debra Skinner, Guy Frost, Kathy Adams, Linda Jones, Mary Frances Hansard, Neil Hughes, Susan Wynne. Guest: Elijah Scott
1. Survey Responses
We received 73 responses to our survey, which closed November 15. The team discussed ways to integrate the responses with our work, especially the documents due in November and December (see below). The survey responses will likely be most applicable to the December documents, but we will review the responses looking for any categories missing from our working documents for the November deadline. Susan will also try to use NVivo to analyze the open-ended responses.
2. Structure & Introductory Description(s) (due Nov. 30)
The group has been talking about the level of detail desired by the larger planning team and what we considered appropriate for this initial submission. Our outline structure with the full version of our introductory descriptions and scenarios would currently be about 24 pages.
Elijah Scott, chair of the Team Leaders, clarified the parameters for what is due Nov. 30 and what the overall planning team expects our group to produce. The November and December submissions are not expected to be the actual RFP, and the larger group is not asking for a deep level of detail in these documents or for the actual RFP. He noted that these initial submissions are first drafts and not final. He recommended using broad categories and focusing more on asking questions than submitting detailed lists of requirements (although the detailed lists and scenarios are extremely important to the process, even if they are not incorporated into the actual RFP as-is). The planning team recommends the Orbis Cascade RFP as a model, but not a strict guide. For the November deadline, Elijah suggested submitting the list of categories plus a few sentences accompanying each category, and maybe a brief broader introduction as well.
Some group members expressed concern about leaving out detailed requirements in the RFP. [Following the Webex meeting, in an email discussion, group members agreed to submit both the briefer document as described by Elijah, along with the more detailed scenarios we have already developed.]
The group has already identified categories that we wish to address (Structure), but we should continue looking at RFP examples, the survey responses, etc., for any missing categories. Erin will create a new working document for the group to write and edit brief 1-4 sentence descriptions for each category. We can pull from or condense the detailed scenarios and other working documents for the brief descriptions.
3. List Required Functionality & Questions about Functionality (due Dec. 20)
Neil and Susan will formulate a plan to de-duplicate all the requirements we have gathered so far (including the survey responses) and reformulate most of them into questions.
Erin indicated that data security and support of issues and problems are being addressed by the Cloud/Systems team. Erin, Andy, and Susan will work on a list of requirements and issues to send to the Cloud team regarding archival and repository material and systems.
Teams were asked to make contact with our GIL Coordinating Committee member and ensure that they are included in the process. Guy is the current chair of the GIL cataloging committee, and Linda is the vice chair. Both of them are also members of the Next-Gen Cataloging & Metadata Team. Guy is planning a GUGM session on the progress of the next-generation system planning effort.
Updates from Collaborative Tech Services (Guy) or Discovery (Amy):
- Amy indicated that Discovery did not meet last month. She publicized our survey and encouraged people to respond.
- Guy reported that the collaborative team would meet via Webex this Thursday. They are currently working on RFP questions.
- Guy reported that Valdosta recently hired a new librarian who has experience with migrating to a shared statewide catalog (albeit not a “next-gen” ILS product) in another state. The group asked him to invite her to join our team.
- Elijah thanked the group for their work so far.