2019-08-07 Consortia SIG Meeting Notes

2019-08-07 Consortia SIG Meeting Notes

Date

Aug 7, 2019

Attendees

  • @David Dahl

  • @Lucy Harrison

  • @Noah Brubaker

  • @Khalilah Gambrell

  • @Steve Walker

  • @Steve Bischof

  • @Peter Sbrzesny

  • @Martina Tumulla

  • @Kelly Drake

  • @Paula Sullenger

  • @zyang

  • @Peter Murray

  • @Martina Schildt

  • @Elena OMalley

  • @Theda Schwing

  • @Owen Stephens

  • @Lloyd Chittenden

  • @Dennis Bridges

Goals

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

Time

Item

Who

Notes

5min

Housekeeping

All

 

45min 

Acquisitions, ERM, and Consortia 

  • discussion with App Integrations Team 

All 

Khalilah: want to avoid developing ourselves into a corner; keep consortia in mind during development of ERM and acq apps

What setups are planned for consortia

  • single-tenant: Five Colleges

  • cross-tenant: FLO

Q: is this two different ways of doing the same thing or is there a driving difference behind each setup

  • probably largely a philosophical difference in starting places; depends on the degree of integration shared between libraries in consortium

eHoldings

  • initial release - only need access to a library's own eholdings

  • link resolver needs to indicate if an item is available at a consortial member

  • 5Colleges - would be useful to see other libraries' eholdings for collection development purposes (i.e. reporting rather than access)

Agreements

  • FLO: each library has its own agreements (and can only see their own agreements)

  • long term needs

    • ability for central office (i.e. consortial staff) to create/edit/view licenses for all members; probably needs to be configurable as to which can/can't be viewed by others

    • ability to share licenses between member libraries

  • 5Colleges: ideally, each library can only see its own agreements; no business need, currently, to see other libraries' agreements

    • some agreements are negotiated by 5Colleges (legal entity for contract is 5Colleges). This is a minority of agreements, and each library can make its own copy of agreement

Licenses - similar data separation/sharing needs as for Agreements

  • Terms: are separate lists of terms needed within a single tenant environment? Probably

    • multi-tenant implementations may have a challenge to manage shared/uniform terms

    • there are at least some consortia that have moved toward standardizing license terms

Q: next steps? what's the plan for moving forward and involving consortia in development of these features?

  • Khalilah: spike for dev team working on single tenant management right now; making sure resources/agreements are tied to correct library

    • multi-tenant should be fairly straightforward at first since sharing between libraries isn't needed

  • some libraries that don't consider themselves consortia have the need for some of the same features in a single-tenant environment (i.e. Duke)

  • who owns requirements?

    • probably both consortia SIG and cross-apps group (and user management)

    • seems like it might need more of a top-down, architectural solution rather than a ground-up solution

Notes by Martina S.

10min

Wrap-up/planning

All

David, Kelly, Steve B., and Apps Interaction Group will discuss offline plan for continuing conversation around single-tenant model and data sharing/restrictions for apps like Acquisitions, etc.

 

Action items