Meeting Time:    8 am EST /  2 pm CET / 1 pm UK

Call in Number:     https://zoom.us/j/995679876 

Meeting URL:  https://zoom.us/j/995679876 Password needed: please see link below

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/COMMUNITY/FOLIO+Meetings+with+Zoom

ERM SIG Folio Wiki: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ERMSIG/

Google Folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17X3tr6siZH8iS07kGcjAqUNl01zVrJmB

Terms and definitions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vue-mbcULpZivWu69a7nAZEdC-H2yXPQqSblbL_0J6U

Slack Channel: # erm-team

Agenda Nov 16th 2022

Convener: Martina S.

Notetaker: Martina T.

Housekeeping

• All: Please edit the attendees list below and indicate when you are there!
• Next ERM meeting:  30 Nov 2022 
  
• all questions and topics for the ERM implementers meeting can be posted on this confluence page: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/SABS
• Open discuss posts: right now no new posts regarding erm
• PC meeting Nov 3
• PC meeting Nov 10

Agenda items

1. Development progress - ERM sprint 153
2. Implementer topic: Transferring agreement lines between agreements
   1. Please read and add your scenarios to the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hGDR2v6JOP2zOO2J8_REFG6b0ndfPyOgV3hUpkDL5hg/edit?usp=sharing

Minutes

• Development progress - ERM sprint 153

  • Thank you to all ERM Bugfest Tester

  • Overall doing well in Bugfest / Still a few unassigned test cases in KB section and permissions / failures in Agreements, one in Dashboard, one in eHoldings, none in Licenses

  • Issues seems to be connected / already working on a number of bug fixes / some are ready for deployment to bugfest environment

  • Starting to work on Orchid
    • ERM-2416 Separate title search and package search in local KB e-resource searching
    • ERM-2448 Design migration process to using GOKb UUID as package match ID
• Implementer topic: Transferring agreement lines between agreements: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hGDR2v6JOP2zOO2J8_REFG6b0ndfPyOgV3hUpkDL5hg/edit?usp=sharing

  • Have discussed this before a while ago – talked about coping agreement line data and agreements and post cancellation access

  • Gathering together examples and understanding what is happening and what is the outcome

  • One scenario well described in SLACK: Move Oxford Research Encyclopedias (ORE) to their own agreement

  • Example from Slack: Transfer of a resource from subscribed to perpetual access

    • Change of purchase option or whether getting perpetual access as a result of having subscribed previously?

    • Nicole: Transferring the Agreement from “newspaper subscripted” to Agreement “newspapers perpetual” / Update our arrangement with the vendor to make the collection perpetual

    • Subscribed: only access while payment of annual fees / perpetual: made a payment and get access to it forever (with small ongoing fee for hosting)

    • Sara: example eBooks or streaming videos / subscribe to a whole package for a year and then at the end of the year you can choose some of them for perpetual / We note which one are used or a Professor requests for a class /  want to move to the perpetual one (see example in row #7)

    • EBA – how you use the evidence to make a decision - sometimes most used or you can decide

    • Access to a package for a period of time and some of them turn into perpetual
    • Sara: streaming video – it will be used again e.g. by professor for class next year

    • Kristin: thinking about Nicol’s example / we create a new purchase order - maybe copy instead of move make sense / because payment has changed, purchase order has changed

    • Sara (chat): But you can more than one POL with one AGL.

    • Jessica (chat): In this situation, I would create a new agreement line as well. Any new PO would have a new line

    • Owen: could decide keep the Agreement line and add a POL and both POLs would reference to the same AGL

    • Sara: is there a decision for developing copy or move, or both? In some cases copy would be good and at others cases moving make sense 

    • Owen: copy or transferring - no decision, yet – scenarios copy makes more sense or some scenarios transferring makes sense

    • To understand the use cases better to suggest a good solution for a couple of steps which occur when e.g. a journal moves to a new publisher and maybe group steps together

    • Sara (chat): And just so that I am understanding correctly: part of all this is being able to retain an AGL but being able to disassociate the eHoldings resource link … right??

    • Owen: example in the list – will be discussed

    • Nicole (chat): I see it as more wanting to regroup a AGL or collection of AGL under a different Agreement, and we might want to preserve the resource link with the AGL data (and maybe even the eHoldings data.

    • Owen: to understand use cases – not always the same thing you want to achieve 

    • Scenario: Agl for a package, but perpetual access is to the individual resource within that package

    • access to a certain streaming video collection and certain videos with perpetual access, but you don’t want an AGL per video – another layer there

  • Example #2 Group of previously separate resources gets bundled together during a renewal process

    • Kristin: Link the Agreements? Jessica: there is a way to link related agreements

    • Jessica: previous AG inactive – link the new PO to the bundle agreement / would link the inactive because for history

    • Sara: unlink the resource with eHoldings not possible / Want to retain the history, but no longer want it attached to the resource / Individual subscription then data base subscription model - Don’t want to lose history – retain but unlinked them

    • Owen: perhaps good example: scenario hundreds of titles / agl for each of those / preserve the fact that it is payed for / now a collection based subscription

    • with an end date on them – either by ending the ag and a new ag and linking them together or at the agl level and putting an end date

    • Suggesting “Active to date” - indication it is an archived agreement line / Instead of unlinking it, it is inactive due to “Active to date”

    • Active from and active to date – KB often don’t have historical information

    • Felix (chat): Could we have a more explicit indication in the MCL of AGRLines? For suppressed instances in Inventory we have a large "!" next to the record

    • Display could be optimized – rather difficult to see the 0/1

  • Example #3 bundle resource get split apart

    • Jessica: make previous AG inactive - would not move an agl

    • Zorian (chat): An example of this would be breaking a Big Deal?

    • Zorian: would the single subs be under one po?

    • Jessica: separate po for individual journals - adding as agreement lines

    • Kristin: different PO – many mini bundles in there

    • Sara: memberships – not everything is in one package

    • Owen: agl for each of those – point to the same POL but in agreements you don’t see it as a membership

  • Please add additional examples – feel free to add notes to the example if you handle it differently (comment or maybe different color)

Chat

Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle 02:04 PM
There were quite a few cases around permissions still unassigned
Von Jessica Harris an alle 02:22 PM
In this situation, I would create a new agreement line as well. Any new PO would have a new line
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle 02:23 PM
But you can more than one POL with one AGL.
Von Jessica Harris an alle 02:25 PM
That's true. We just aren't doing that with ours. I think I would just link the agreements rather than wanting to copy an agreement line or add a duplicate.
Von Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) an alle 02:27 PM
And just so that I am understanding correctly: part of all this is being able to retain an AGL but being able to disassociate the eHoldings resource link … right??
Von Nicole Trujillo an alle 02:29 PM
I see it as more wanting to regroup a AGL or collection of AGL under a different Agreement, and we might want to preserve the resource link with the AGL data (and maybe even the eHoldings data.
Von Felix Hemme (ZBW) an alle 02:41 PM
Could you add an access end date to the AGRLine?
Oh, the field is "Active to"
Could we have a more explicit indication in the MCL of AGRLines?
For suppressed instances in Inventory we have a large "!" next to the record
Von Zorian Sasyk (he/him) an alle 02:51 PM
An example of this would be breaking a Big Deal?

Attendees list