Contacts -

 - All contacts will be entered in the CE, then shared with both local RMs

 - Staff will inherit relevant contacts from the CE and attach to providers and databases as appropriate

Additional points to discuss here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TLX-2OrGjqApgf7tDSDRQdg_-XRKMLdN2sI_KjZB-pw/edit

Naming conventions

For Contact name when it is a generic Tech Support type of contact:

Last Name = Technical Support, Customer Support, etc... (i.e. Support)

First Name = Vendor name (i.e. Alexander Street Press)

For Contact Type menu:

Columbia - Vendor                         

Consortia                            

Columbia - Selector                        

Other                   

Columbia - Staff                               

Cornell - Vendor                              

2CUL - Vendor                  

Cornell - Staff                   

2CUL - Staff

 

Possibility - Cornell Staff, Columbia Staff, 2CUL staff, Vendor (Cornell only), Vendor (Columbia only), Vendor (2CUL)

Trial phase

  • Choose a subset of 30ish Cornell Contacts to start with. Enter these by Wednesday, August 13.  Also, try 30 with the uploader.
    • Enter these in CE
    • Share with both 2CULs
    • Inherit in Cornell
    • Attach to Provider/Databases
  • Evaluate pros/cons, turnaround time, general complexity of workflow (all from 2 perspectives: mass data entry and ongoing maintenance)
  • Enter Cornell's Innovative ERM contacts into CE following this process.
  • Link to spreadsheet of Cornell III ERM contacts on google docs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AU34qoNt3Teey9afnOUWSoXywjVwpQUlkG-pNYlADjk/edit?usp=sharing

Licenses

 - Precise terminology, naming conventions, etc... to be determined by Phase II license entry planning group

Workflow

  • All Licenses will be input at CE (with the exception of Cornell’s Phase 1 work). 
  • These will be shared to both CULs, and inherited as needed. 
  • These CE versions will be copied in the local RM (essentially working like a template), edited for local information (scanned license URL, Auth Users, other exceptions)
  • The local copy will be attached to appropriate resources. 
    • Assumption: We will always need to copy the CE version of the license in the local RMs as we will have some local data to encode (Auth users, etc...)

Trial of workflow

We will choose several licenses (perhaps NERL licenses) to start the process.  Phase II license group should suggest a group of licenses.  What do we need to decide before we can:

  • By End of August:
  • Choose some NERL licenses we have in common
  • Licensing staff (Joyce, Jesse, Susan, Liisa?) enter 2-3 each into CE.
  • Discuss the variables uncovered

Menu changes

 Should we add Permitted - Interpreted, Permitted - Explicit, and similar terms to pull down menus?

Databases

Workflow trial possibility:  Choose one of the large publishers (Elsevier, Wiley, Springer) to work through and develop a process.  Each of these publishers introduces a host of variables to sort out in our work; including unsubscribed title lists; many titles in common; many titles not in common; journals, books, and other content.  Perhaps collection development can suggest one to start with, or look at renewal cycles.  Springer Journals is up for renewal this year, Wiley and Elsevier are both recently renewed via NERL (2 years and 5 years, respectively).

§  Exactly the same content at each CUL and/or databases that do not have variation in title level access – manage at CE, share and inherit as needed.  Examples- Springer eBook collection, EconLit, etc…

§  Differing content – Manage at the local level. Examples – subscribed titles lists with Elsevier/Wiley.

§  Hybrid- i.e. A consortial accessible titles list from Wiley managed in CE, with individually subbed titles managed locally.-

  • No labels