Minutes 3/29/19

Erin Rushton
Erin Rushton
Last updated 
Overview of SUNY Scope Testing: Shannon
We have learned recently that the "June Release" that we have been anticipating will not address the issue of IZ (e.g. course reserves, local materials,) records showing up the the SUNY catalogue scope.  Hopefully ExL is able to address this issue at some point but it will not happen by our go-live.  

Concerning the testing the the DWG has developed,  we can exclude IZ records for the time being.  E-resources appearing in the SUNY catalogue, however, is a major issue.  The "June Release" should fix this problem but unfortunately, ExL can not give us the release early like we were hoping.  As a workaround, ExL will give us access to a QA environment, which has a copy of SUNY’s production data.  Five institutions can have access to the QA environment for testing.  Shannon has identified the campuses and has been in touch with the institutional leads to make sure they are willing and able to test.  
  
The concern at this time is that we have also learned that we will just have 4 hours to test Primo VE and that the Primo VE environments will not be released until the day before go-live.  Four hours is not long to test Primo VE as well as the  SUNY catalogue scope.  Next week, the project leads will be meeting with ExL to discuss a more detailed timeline.  Primo testing will be discussed at this meeting.    https://slcny.libguides.com/migration
 
While we want to continue raising concerns about the IZ records in the catalogue scope, the priority, especially before go-live, is e-resources.  If this is not addressed, then we may need to postpone go-live.   
 
Shannon asked the DWG to identify specific examples of e-resources that should not appear in the SUNY catalogue.  This needs to be scalable to that all campuses can use to test.  He also asked that we provide general specs of what we don't want to see in catalogue e.g. databases, journals, ebooks.  We will work on this by our next meeting.  
See:  https://3.basecamp.com/3649838/buckets/5867332/documents/1602280619 

Primo Speed/Response Issues: Shannon
The slowness of Primo VE is a known issue.  ExL believes its an infrastructure issue and it is something that is not easily fixed.  Shannon asked the DWG to identify specific examples of latency e.g. a title search in advanced search.  IWO, we can't just say its "slow" we need to be explicit.  Shannon also suggested that we should be communicating  with other consortia so that ExL understands the severity of the issue.  We will create a gathering document to collect scenarios
https://3.basecamp.com/3649838/buckets/5867332/documents/1697555540 


OA Coverage Follow-up from Lynn: “I highlighted the collections that are entirely open access as not needing comparable activation in Alma, but the documentation notes that full text is available from some of these collections through the Alma link resolver and therefore collections would have to be activated.  Because discovery and delivery are not necessarily from the same resources, this may not be a prevalent issue in the PCI results and it’s not a steadfast rule that those collections using the link resolver have to have comparable activations in Alma, but if you want to heighten the full text availability, then you will want to activate the comparable Alma collection for those PCI collections using the link resolver.” Michelle will need to update the FAQ about this 

Michelle updated OA section on the FAQ. 

Availability Status
The issue of "availability" changing when a record is open vs the initial result screen is another ongoing concern, especially because its confusing to patrons.  It is possible that this may improve after we are on a more regular publishing schedule.    Nancy will come up with some examples or a script for testing.  We can share this will ExL.  Maybe ExL can set up more frequent testing for a few campuses to see if this makes any improvement. 

Subject Browse
There was a email on the SUNYLA listserve concerning the limitations of subject browse.  Is this something the DWG wants to discuss at an upcoming meeting? 

SUNYLA Proposal: has been accepted! Yay! SUNYLA planning. Michelle, Jill and Rebecca will start to work on the slide

Matters arising
Jill shared some examples of "buggy" things she observed while working in Alma.  For example, she created an ebook order but then the link for the ebook began appearing in other records. 


For next meeting
Recommendation to inherit from Central Package: (for Other Library button and hide Request from Other Library in Resource Sharing form) – this could be an addendum to our Hide “other library” policy/best practice: https://slcny.libguides.com/discoverywg/best_practices

GETIT Other wording: discussion about whether we should recommend wording, let's set a deadline for this

Availability

Marketing

UX