December 19, 2013

GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting Notes December 13, 2013

GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting Notes
December 13, 2013, 2-3 PM

Present: Erin Grant (team leader), Amy Eklund, Kelly Holt, Neil Hughes, Linda Jones, Adam Kubik, Jessica Lee, Jenifer Marquardt, Debra Skinner, Susan Wynne

There was no formal agenda for the meeting. The primary goal was to assess our progress on the document due on December 20 (draft of RFP questions).  We’re also planning to submit an appendix of supporting and explanatory material, which Jenifer Marquardt has been editing.

Erin Grant shared an RFP writers’ guide with the group via email.  This document may be helpful as we continue working on draft RFP questions.

I.  Topics needing attention in the RFP questions.

A.  Interoperability with campus or external systems
  • The group agreed that although general interoperability is an important issue, we should remove references to systems such as Banner, PeopleSoft, etc., that are primarily of interest to other functional areas, from our submitted documents.  Jenifer will remove the mentions of systems that deal with student or financial data that is tangential or not directly relevant to most cataloging functions and send to Viki Timian. (We have already addressed interoperability that is more directly related to cataloging, metadata, and authority work.)
  • The group acknowledged that daily workflows for many individuals, especially in smaller libraries, often overlap multiple functional areas.  We thought that interoperability with campus systems should be addressed somewhere in the RFP, even if our section is not the best place.

B. Interaction between modules in the system/interdepartmental workflows
  • Jenifer noted that we’ve included questions about interaction between modules within the system.
  • Susan Wynne mentioned that several survey respondents had mentioned dissatisfaction with interaction between modules in the current system.
  • Amy noted that the flow between systems is more important for some functions, especially reporting, e.g., by circulation, cost, call numbers, etc.
  • Susan noted that Amy’s comment is also relevant in light of potential future uses for data, as more and more we’re being asked to demonstrate how libraries benefit students.
  • Neil Hughes noted that interoperability of modules within the system depends heavily on permissions and asked whether the current draft adequately addresses permissions in light of this concern.  Often, we don’t need editing permission, but do need permission to view or access data for reporting purposes only.
  • Erin suggested that we might look to the Cloud/Systems group to address this aspect of permissions.  She’s been corresponding with them and has already shared a list of questions related to archives & metadata.  

C.  Migration issues
  • Jessica Lee asked about suppressed records and migration.  The group agreed that additional questions regarding migration were desirable, addressing the issues of suppressed records and the ability to choose which records are migrated.
  • Amy suggested adding a question about what happens to records lacking OCLC numbers during migration.

II.  Editing the RFP questions and appendix for the December 20 deadline.
  • The group will continue working on the draft document(s), either making edits or comments directly on the shared document(s) or sending comments or questions to the email list.
  • Erin asked for all changes to be submitted no later than December 18 to allow her time to prepare the document(s) for submission on December 20.
  • Erin reminded the group that the December 20 submission is still a draft and we will have opportunities to edit.  

III. Update on the survey.
  • Susan is currently coding/categorizing responses in NVivo and preparing a summary for possible sharing beyond the Cataloging/Metadata team.
  • Jenifer noted that the survey also revealed areas for further education, training, etc.  We can use the survey to discover possible topics to cover at GUGM.
  • Amy noted that the survey responses are a good source of questions for the planned FAQ on the USG website.
  • Jenifer indicated that the survey results reinforced that we’re covering the important issues and points that people are thinking about.

Erin thanked everyone for their work.

No comments:

Post a Comment