2018-08-31 Meeting notes

Re: the ERM/KB conversation, and harvesting the whole KB versus one library's holdings: I totally understand that the ERM has a tight timeline and a model that is being driven by the German libraries who will be using it with GoKB. At some point, it would be good to understand what a workflow might look like for early adopter libraries who use commercial KBs (mainly PQ and EBSCO, I guess, but maybe OCLC?), and will also have access to the tools within the ERM and eHoldings app. Between licenses, packages, eUsage, eHoldings, linking to orders, linking to vendors, etc - can that be pulled together into a workflow that is useful for those libraries? Since that is beyond the scope of the ERM group, maybe we could have a further conversation about it at an upcoming RM SIG meeting? Or maybe this is not a pressing issue for the early adopter libraries, so not necessary to discuss at this time. If that's the case, maybe we just acknowledge and document that and move on. In any event, thanks for considering.

Hi Ann-Marie, Ian and I are at the moment sitting together and discussing this topic. We thought about asking the other libraries about their needs. So, it may take until tomorrow, then we will come back with some ideas.

Commercial knowledgebase vendors will not provide the complete contents of their knowledgebases to use as a basis from which a library selected or managed content. I don't know if GOkb will provide an effective tool for libraries to use; even if it offers the ability for German libraries to download its entire data set, FOLIO implementation will then need a way to manage the changes between the knowledgebase and local changes and updates. It will be necessary for libraries to determine how often they want to update their version of the GOkb database; presumably they would need to update their version of the GOkb database at least once per week, if not more often. They would then need to manage knowledgebase updates versus local changes and updates. 

Indeed. I think owen has clearer thinking here, and we went through some of this in KB+ where we queued up "ToDo" items which allowed the eresources librarian to approve change by change the modifications coming from the KB which implied a change to their agreement. Institutions were then free to accept the change, or to challenge it. However, we almost instantly had to implement an "Accept All" as the initial shine of this feature quickly became a burden given the rate of change for some packages. I think where we ended up was deciding that the default setting would be to automatically apply changes to an agreement BUT always provide an "undo" button on the alert. Of course you could turn this off and revert to the old manual style. And this would really only work for "Managed" packages where you have decided to track what comes and goes at the title level. Users choosing the "Package" level entitlement would get what they are given. This means that an eresources librarian would  see an alert like "Journal of Clincial Cancer Drugs was removed from Package Bentham Science which is an entitlement in your Bentham Science Subscription Agreement. Click here to revert this change. In later projects, we started moving in the direction of flagging specific titles (This applied more to core text ebooks) for which the administrator wanted a special level of alert if they suddenly vanished. The interplay of "Core" here is something we never really bottomed out. Owen - have I misrepresented? I don't think what I've described here is necessarily v1, but I think it is where our thinking is.....