Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  1. Development progress - ERM Sprint 122
  2. Continue on „Agreements vs. Agreement Lines“ - use cases, scenarios and questions to feedback (Jessica)


Minutes

  • Development progress - ERM Sprint 122
    • ERM 121 was longer sprint, therefore ERM 122 shorter sprint

    • A lot of the work is Background work – migration of test cases to new test software

    • Work on bug fixes

    • Work on how data is loaded from GOKb into the internal KB

    • Trying Different approaches to support it
    • In this sprint: Ability to harvest high quality title information independently of package information
    • Felix (chat): What Jira issue is related to the independent title loading? -> ERM-1801Implement Title Ingest process 
    • Have implemented the ability to do it separately but right now only for GOKb import
    • Harvest title from GOKb separately from GOKb packages
    • Opening up the possibility for other resources

    • We started from harvesting the packages – so behind every title there is a package (platform / provider / sold as part of a package)

    • Harvesting title independently – titles don’t have platform or package information associated with them – no option for acquiring displayed

    • to look at solutions e.g. filters (Search for title with option for acquiring)

  • Continue on „Agreements vs. Agreement Lines“ - use cases, scenarios and questions to feedback (Jessica)
    • Example 4: Brill subscriptions: same renewal dates, same license, different POs, all subscribed to direct through Brill. 
      • none of them through consortium

      • several of them encyclopedias – one Agreement for those encyclopedias and each an agreement line

      • Sara: would look at different formats – a lot of them encyclopedia / Another thing to look at which ones have the same platform e.g. Oxford has their encyclopedias / ebooks / handbooks on separate platforms
        Platform and all encyclopedias on one Agreement, Platform and all handbook and linking them to make related agreements 
        Trying to match up usage statistics – which ones I need to look up as groups / Review process – maybe you want different reports or you get them on one report / Vendor the same, renewal date – makes nice groups or sets 

      • Jessica: Do you log your usage statistic type for each of the resources at agreements?

      • Sara: no - I do have it for journals as spreadsheet – started linking it in suppl. documents / In sup. Documents you can upload the file or link to it and nice note filed – preferred method for statistic (counter4 or 5)  
      • Felix (chat): There's also an eUsage - Agreements integration

      • Jack (chat): We currently have three supp. properties configured in our tenant - Resource URL, Simultaneous Users, and Authentication Method. The first two are just open text fields so we can enter the appropriate URL or number/text and the third is a picklist we defined to have what we considered all the relevant auth. methods.

      • Owen: if you are using Licenses as well, it might be appropriate that the suppl. properties are on the Licenses -whatever best for you – you can look up which licenses supports this property - it is more designed into the license applications than the agreement applications - In this case using the same license – you can record the license terms once in the license record and link it to multiple agreements  / Suppl. properties and suppl. documents in agreements can be used for whatever is appropriate for you – but to highlight if you are also using licenses to think about where the information is stored 

      • Owen (chat): Everything here for me points to it being OK to have these as a single agreement for all of these with an agreement line for each title. The breakdown Sara describes as being appropriate as well - but increases the number of agreements - so it might depend on how much variety there is across these different resource types in terms of how they are managed, your contacts, etc. etc.

      • Owen: One renewal date, one license, one organization – single agreement with multiple agreement lines each agreement line link to each own PO / Division more categorized make sense as well to have 3 Agreements rather than one / Just the title in this example might be overkill if you have more agreements / Are there a lot of titles there can be a benefit to separate it / License is the same but there are specific terms that only apply to certain types of resource, then splitting it to agreement – express them as amendment to the license 
      • Sara: platform aspect – using HLM via e-holdings – you might link to different packages / In HLM the Handbooks are one package and the encyclopedia are one – keeping them on different agreements helps to manage the package interaction / Multiple packages on the same agreement and it can be messy / Vendor also packaging them differently 
      • Abby Wickes (chat): I like the idea of capturing authentication methods

      • Jack (chat): We were actually capturing it in two places in CORAL - on the resource record access tab and as a term on the license. Licenses can sometimes grant you more than one option - some are open and some don

      • Felix Hemme (chat): We have a supp. property to record what resource type(s) are managed in the agreement. Feedback from staff is quite good till now

      • Kristin (chat): When will Agreement Lines be searchable?

      • Owen: Like to see it happen – not solid proposal for it at the moment – prepare some proposal to get feedback from the group / Dennis presented at app interaction some ideas in acquisition search across orders and orders line in one search and one search result list / Not the same scenarios, but a lot of parallels / Ideally if possible approach that works across orders and agreements – harder as a new tab in agreements – need to consider cost vs benefit and time scales 

      • Owen: additional complication - because searching for resources and finding the agreement and agreement line as there are part of and that is different in eHolding and internal KB.  / Search internal Kb in the e-resources search – all the agreement that contains that resource – directly or part as a package – same in eHoldings – some differences - not intuitive 

      • Sara (chat): And only if the resource is in eHoldings

      • Owen: yes if the resource is not in eHoldings, then you back to the agreement line level

      • Owen: additional complications: 3 levels – agreement and agreement line and resources that make up the agreement line and then the resource can be in the internal KB or eHoldings / Difficult to find a solution   - More difficult as to make agreement line searchable 

      • Sara: not equal solution – appear in an order that makes senses – agreement lines alphabetically not random / To find it I go into edit more and do an F4 – but I cannot go through all the fields 

      • Owen: putting this on the agenda for another call / Gill and Owen discussing use of edit screen access better to be on the view screen – to explore this further – edit screen is used but not for editing but t give you view type task 

      • Felix (chat): <Sorting> is cumbersome in other areas as well and there was discussion about it last summer.

      • Jessica (chat): We're thinking of using supp. properties for Read & Publish (and other OA agreements), multi-year agreements, fund codes, and hosting fees (depending on how we end up setting up our agreements)

      • Jack (chat):  That's why I'm erring on the side of 1 agreement per resource (with appropriate agreement line based on how the EKB represents that resource)
        Where I have brought together multiple resources it's more like these reference/encyclopedia titles but I don't actually know if it's beneficial yet to have them grouped up because we weren't tracking them as close as say - a popular database or big journal package

    • Example 5: Gale one-time purchase: Some have hosting fees, some do not. Many hosting fees are paid on one PO through our consortium. Some are paid individually direct to Gale.
      • More complicated: Hosting fee – direct and through a consortium

      • Should the one paid through a consortium be on a separate agreement? Should there all go on one agreement, but then how do you differentiate?  

      • Jack: Complicated because free gale through consortium – no associated license – but we need to track access / All free resources are on one agreement – everything else it is its own agreement e.g. the 18th century collection / and sometimes as the EBSCO KB breaks it down / In the description what it is e.g. database, ebook-package / recording the type of acquisition / Coral is using the acquisition type + material type + format for a renewal workflow
      • Jessica: Are you putting your invoices in?

      • Jack: not currently – not using orders yet – stored in internal drive – would like to attach to orders / when live on orders – than attaching the POL to the AGL 

      • Sara (chat): I have been putting inv # & date with $$ in AGL lines for one-time purchases that were long and won't be migrated

      • Sara: proving to the vendor – that we paid – so in a future project scan physical files and attach them

      • Kristin: for the example that all our hosting fee paid though consortium – one agreement per database or all on one – can each Agreement line be attached to the same one POL for the access fee payment?

      • Owen: Same POL on multiple AGL – repeat the link to every single one/ One agreement line per collection you can attach the right order line with agreement line / Caution with reporting not to double count
      • Sara: have you tried in the agreement to differentiate – access fee, subscriptions, hosting fee?

      • Jessica: one of the supp. properties e.g. hosting fee or access fee / Access fee are automatically renewed 

      • Kristin: Proquest – content fee and access fee – do have to split them apart for reporting as different cost type – one is collection cost and the other is not, access fee is not a capital expense

      • Owen: paying the hosting fee – nature of payment what the invoice is for or PO is for – not on the agreement – no way of describing that

    • Example 6: EBSCO databases & packages of databases
      • Several databases in EDS package – each PO and one license agreement / Other databases through consortium or directly from EBSCO 

      • Jack: single Agreement

      • Sara: each one agreement with one agreement line

      • Owen (chat): And here lies the strength (and weakness?) of providing the flexibility :) But on the whole I think a strength
      • Felix (chat): It depends: Some of our databases are managed in the same agreement, but for ProQuest OneBusiness and ProQuest Ulrichsweb we had to create 2 agreements, because the start dates vary and we have different licenses.

Chat

Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle:  02:07 PM
What Jira issue is related to the independent title loading?
Von Owen Stephens an alle:  02:13 PM
So we have the answer in the chat: ERM-1801
Everything here for me points to it being OK to have these as a single agreement for all of these with an agreement line for each title. The breakdown Sara describes as being appropriate as well - but increases the number of agreements - so it might depend on how much variety there is across these different resource types in terms of how they are managed, your contacts, etc. etc.
Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle:  02:18 PM
There's also an eUsage - Agreements integration
Von Jack Mulvaney an alle:  02:18 PM
We currently have three supp. properties configured in our tenant - Resource URL, Simultaneous Users, and Authentication Method. The first two are just open text fields so we can enter the appropriate URL or number/text and the third is a picklist we defined to have what we considered all the relevant auth. methods.
Von Abby Wickes (she/her/hers) an alle:  02:20 PM
I like the idea of capturing authentication methods
Von Jack Mulvaney an alle:  02:21 PM
We were actually capturing it in two places in CORAL - on the resource record access tab and as a term on the license. Licenses can sometimes grant you more than one option - some are open and some don
Von Peter McCracken an alle:  02:21 PM
+1 Abby; I think that’d be really valuable.
Von Jack Mulvaney an alle:  02:21 PM
't mention it at all
Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle:  02:21 PM
We have a supp. property to record what resource type(s) are managed in the agreement. Feedback from staff is quite good till now
Von Abby Wickes (she/her/hers) an alle:  02:21 PM
Gradually
Von Kristin Martin an alle:  02:23 PM
When will Agreement Lines be searchable?
Von Jessica Harris (she/her) an alle:  02:27 PM
We're thinking of using supp. properties for Read & Publish (and other OA agreements), multi-year agreements, fund codes, and hosting fees (depending on how we end up setting up our agreements)
Von Jack Mulvaney an alle:  02:29 PM
That's why I'm erring on the side of 1 agreement per resource (with appropriate agreement line based on how the EKB represents that resource)
Where I have brought together multiple resources it's more like these reference/encyclopedia titles but I don't actually know if it's beneficial yet to have them grouped up because we weren't tracking them as close as say - a popular database or big journal package
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle:  02:30 PM
And only if the resource is in eHoldings
Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle:  02:34 PM
<Sorting> is cumbersome in other areas as well and there was discussion about it last summer.
Von Owen Stephens an alle:  02:36 PM
I have to admit one agreement per resource makes me sad as it suggests we’ve got something fundamentally wrong :( (this is not a criticism of your approach, just me reflecting that there are some issues)
I did some analysis of these Gale resources for another project several years ago and they are a nightmare - for one of them I found Gale had about 5 different names for the same resource and three different lists of their 
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle:  02:39 PM
I plan to with Supp doc ... and I may have one already
As in retro from files
Von Abby Wickes (she/her/hers) an alle:  02:39 PM
that sounds about right for Gale :)
Von Owen Stephens an alle:  02:39 PM
:)
OK - I’ll try not to feel too sad ;)
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle:  02:42 PM
I have been putting inv # & date with $$ in AGL lines for one-time purchases that were long and won't be migrated
Von Owen Stephens an alle:  02:53 PM
I think I’d be looking at that information to go on the POL or the Invoice Line probably
Is that like Postage & Packing on a physical purchase?
And here lies the strength (and weakness?) of providing the flexibility :) But on the whole I think a strength
Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle:  03:00 PM
It depends: Some of our databases are managed in the same agreement, but for ProQuest OneBusiness and ProQuest Ulrichsweb we had to create 2 agreements, because the start dates vary and we have different licenses.
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle:  03:01 PM
Also because in many cases I am not linking them up to HLM
Von Owen Stephens an alle:  03:02 PM
Really great discussion



Attendees list

Present

Name

Home Organization


Aaron Neslin

UMass

x

Abigail Wickes

Duke University Libraries


Alaina Jones 

Duke


Alice Daugherty

University of Alabama


Alistair Morrison

Johns Hopkins University Libraries


Amanda Cornwell

Johns Hopkins University Libraries


Amelia Sutton

UMass


Andrea Meindl

UB Regensburg


Ann-Marie Breaux

EBSCO


Annika Schröer

UB Leipzig

x

Anu Moorthy

Duke


Anya Arnold

EBSCO

x

Beate Aretz

Stabi Berlin

x

Benjamin Ahlborn

SuUB Bremen


Birgit Neumann

Björn Muschall

UB Leipzig


Carole Godfrey

EBSCO


Catherine Tuohy

Emmanuel College 


Charlotte Whitt

Index Data


Claudia Malzer

ULB Darmstadt, Developer


Dennis Bridges

EBSCO


Dwayne Swigert

Missouri State University

x

Emma Raub 

Cornell

x

Eric Hartnett

Texas A&M University

x

Felix Hemme

ZBW Kiel


Frances Webb

Cornell, Developer

x

Gill Osguthorpe

UX/UI Designer - K-Int


Gisela Weinerth

SUB Hamburg


Heather Thoele

Texas A&M University


Ian Ibbotson

Developer Lead - K-Int

x

Jack Mulvaney

UMass


Jag Goraya

K-Int

x

Janet Ewing

Five Colleges / Mount Holyoke College Library


Jenna Lantermann

Five Colleges / Smith College 


Jenna Strawbridge

Duke

x

Jessica Harris

Chicago


Jir Shin Boey

Missouri State University


Joe Sikowitz

Fenway Library Organization


Johann Rolschewski

ZDB, Berlin


Johanna RaddingFive Colleges / Amherst College

Julie Brannon

Duke


Kathleen Berry

UMass Amherst

x

Kathleen Norton

Five Colleges / Mount Holyoke College Library


Katrin Brüggemann

UB Leipzig


Khalilah Gambrell

EBSCO


Kirstin Kemner-Heek  

VZG, Göttingen


Kristen Wilson

Index Data

x

Kristin Martin

Chicago


Kyle Banerjee

EBSCO

Lars-Hakan Herbertsson

Chalmers


Laura Wright

Cornell University


Lindsey Lowry

University of Alabama


Lindsey Taggert

Missouri State University


Luca Lanzillo

Sapienza Library System - Sapienza University of Rome


Maike Osters

hbz, Cologne


Mara Egherman

EBSCO


Marie Widigson

Chalmers


Mariyam Thorhira

Johns Hopkins University Libraries


Marjorie Snyder



Mark Arnold

Missouri State University


Mark Deutsch

Duke

x

Martina Karlsson

Chalmers

x

Martina Schildt

VZG, Göttingen

x

Martina Tumulla

hbz, Cologne


Mary O’Brien



Matthieu Bordet

DMCultura, Ravenna, Italy

x

Molly Driscoll

EBSCO


Moritz Horn

VZG, Göttingen

x

Nancy Finn


x

Nancy Pelis

Five Colleges / Mount Holyoke College Library

x

Norma Flores

Texas A&M University

Olga Harder

TIB Hannover

x

Owen Stephens

Product Owner -  Owen Stephens Consulting


Paul Trumble

Amherst

x

Peter Böhm

HeBIS, Frankfurt

x

Peter McCracken

Cornell


Robert SchreierCollege of the Holy Cross

Rüdiger Stratmann

IAI SPK Berlin

          

Sabine Howahl

ULB Darmstadt

x

Sabrina Bayer

UB Regensburg

x

Sara Colglazier

Five Colleges / Mount Holyoke College Library

x

Sarah Dennis

Texas A&M University


Sarah Morgenstern-Einenkel

UB Leipzig


Scott Stangroom

UMass


Siobhan McManamon

Five Colleges / Smith College


Sobha Duvvuri

EBSCO


Stew MacLehose

University of New England

x

Susanne Schuster

BSZ Konstanz

x

Tatjana Clemens

UB Frankfurt


Theodor Tolstoi

Chalmers, EBSCO


Tracy Patton

Missouri State University


Virginia Martin

Duke University Libraries


Xiaoyan (Yan) Song

NCSU


Yvonne Mönkediek

SuUB Bremen




...