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 30th 2022

Convener: Martina T.

Notetaker: Martina S.

Housekeeping

• All: Please edit the attendees list below and indicate when you are there!
• Next ERM meeting:  14 Dec 2022 = last meeting in 2022
  • first meeting in 2023: 11 Jan 2023 
• 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 17th
• PC meeting Nov 24th (no meeting | written updates)

Agenda items

1. Development progress - ERM sprint 154
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

• through Nolana bugfest: found a severe issue
  • when things a running at the same time there are issues
  • e.g. when doing a harvest into local KB and applying a setting to set up proxy URLs at the same time → creates problems
  • Owen talks to release manager to decide on what to do and whether problem can be fixed before relase of Nolana
• in Agreements - local KB: separating out e-resources vs. package search | ongoing work
• Morning Glory Hotfix work going on at the same time | deadline is extended to unknown date

Announcement: FOLIO Forum today at 11 am ET

• Introducing the Open Access App
• Owen will present on OA 
• registration link: https://openlibraryfoundation.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_cXCEN_ZBRoWaHc6IuzxhsQ
  

Transferring agreement lines between agreements

• when provider releases an updated version of a package and deprecates existing package | #4 in the document
  • one option: be able to edit the package information on the AGL
    • but changing a resource after creation is like changing a resource after invoicing
    • does not seem like a good idea
    • history gets lost
  • Sara: what is in the KB is a representation of what we buy | it is not what we buy
    • a KB seldom represents 100% what libraries are subscribing to because packages change over time
  • Jack in chat: I'd agree with that - especially as an eHoldings user where we're reliant on the outside entity (EBSCO) to determine what the resource actually is and can't negate it locally
    
  • second option: move agreement line
  • third option: agreement line | thereby history can be kept
  • should be the least possible work for the user | no matter what the solution will look like
• new use case by Sara: individual SAGE journal subscription - move to database model | #8 in the document
  • new agreement will be created
  • old resource in old AGL will be deselected
  • the old AGL should preserve the history
• Kristin in chat: This would be more a scenario that you link to a selected title, but then deselect it because something else in the KB replaces it for access reasons, right?
  
  • resources can be removed from holdings in eholdings, but will still be on the AGL | will then display with holding status "deselected" on the AGL
• Felix: If I remember correctly, then it was an intentional decission from eHoldings to not store data about e-resources in FOLIO. So we should touchbase with Khaliah or some folks from Ebsco and tell them about the requirement.
  
  • that is correct | ERM team had discussions with Khalilah
• Journal moves to a new publisher | #5 in the document
  • not dissimilar to #8
  • move AGLs (may or may not need a new agreement)
  • might be a new POL or not - it depends on the exact use case
  • Jack in chat: Using eHoldings this presents a similar problem - the actual title entry in the KB cant be used since it's specific to the old publisher
    
  • Sara in chat: Yes, also important for PCA
    
• Move a journal subscription from one subscription agent to another | #6 in the document
  • Move AGL from one agreement to another
  • would likely have a new POL | there may be exceptions though
    • Kristin in chat: You could have the same POL but change the vendor. When SWETS went bankrupt, we didn't change the POLs, we updated the vendor.
  • might want to preserve some information from the AGL, e.g. notes
  • could be the same resource but a different agreement
• In subscribed collection a number of resources get transferred to a "purchase" for perpetual access | #7 in the document
  • typical model for streaming video and some ebook packages
  • the original agreement is usually for a complete collection
  • at some point some resources are transferred to real purchases
  • currently only way would be to create a new agreement and add details to it
  • question: which information do you want to have a copy of - would be another disussion - a session on itself

Next step: Owen will come up with a proposal to discuss in the SIG again.

Chat

14:10:38 From Owen Stephens To Everyone:
    https://openlibraryfoundation.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_cXCEN_ZBRoWaHc6IuzxhsQ
14:17:17 From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) To Everyone:
    Yes, it was I
14:23:14 From Jack Mulvaney To Everyone:
    I'd agree with that - especially as an eHoldings user where we're reliant on the outside entity (EBSCO) to determine what the resource actually is and can't negate it locally
14:38:50 From Kristin Martin To Everyone:
    This would be more a scenario that you link to a selected title, but then deselect it because something else in the KB replaces it for access reasons, right?
14:44:05 From Felix Hemme (ZBW) To Everyone:
    If I remember correctly, then it was an intentional decission from eHoldings to not store data about e-resources in FOLIO. So we should touchbase with Khaliah or some folks from Ebsco and tell them about the requirement.
14:47:03 From Jack Mulvaney To Everyone:
    Using eHoldings this presents a similar problem - the actual title entry in the KB cant be used since it's specific to the old publisher
14:49:51 From Sara Colglazier (MHC/5C) To Everyone:
    Yes, also important for PCA
14:51:03 From Jack Mulvaney To Everyone:
    Yes
14:51:35 From Kristin Martin To Everyone:
    You could have the same POL but change the vendor.
14:52:16 From Kristin Martin To Everyone:
    When SWETS went bankrupt, we didn't change the POLs, we updated the vendor.

Attendees list