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

Recording: https://prod-zoom-recordings-openlibraryfoundation-org.s3.amazonaws.com/529c26c3-70d7-4e08-9a2c-a3fe209b99eb%2Fshared_screen_with_speaker_view.mp4

Agenda Feb 22nd 2023

Convener: Martina T.

Notetaker: Martina S.

Housekeeping

• All: Please edit the attendees list below and indicate when you are there!
• Next ERM meeting:  08 Mar 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
• PC meeting Feb 9th
• PC meeting Feb 16th was cancelled

Agenda items

1. Development progress - ERM sprint 159

2. Options for the display of the new Agreements “Content types” field

   1. Please read and answer the questions in this document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yoQkjrVyt_VKVzx0Z2MHsgiY0lfoO93ZqUVwxZC7L-Q/edit#
3. Implementers topic: Finding details of titles that are part of an agreement
   1. Please read and answer the questions in this document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qB7xfOYxA33AHSLlWB26sDHkOekXJqxT3avMcoMcbG8/edit?usp=sharing

Minutes

Development progress - ERM sprint 159

• team worked on some bugfixes
• trying to get them done until release - initial release by the end of this week
• in this released improved testing | new end-to-end tests
• added for Orchid: ability to filter for description
  • filter for alternative name takse longer than expected
  • more difficult, because multiple alternative names can be entered

Options for the display of the new Agreements “Content types” field

• already available to define content types → suppl. properties
• new solution: there can be multiple content types
• content types can be filtered on
• display options
  • A1 | beneath description as a bulleted list
  • A2 | beneath description as a via semicolon separated list
  • B1 | next to the description in the fourth column
  • B2 | next to the description in the third column
  • C   | above the description in the third column
  • D   | within the description field | content type can be filtered separately nevertheless
• ERM SIG is to decide which option is preferred
  • Tatjana in chat: B1 because the screen appears „tidier“ and you can tell at first glance which content the product contains and the width of the display is well used
  • Felix in chat: To me resource type has nothing to do with the general description field so I'd vote to not include it within the description field.
• to decide on the preferred option the homework and voting will be kept open for further comments
• option with most support will be picked
• unless there is no clear decision this topic will not be brought back to a SIG discussion but will be moved forward

Finding details of titles that are part of an agreement

• in internal KB → looking at a reference title
  • it is difficult to work out what a library gets access to 
    • how do users get to the title
  • multiple clicks are necessary
  • getting an overview can get harder the more titles and packages are listed
  • finding the title within an eresources covered by an agreement is tricky as there can be multiple tabs and long lists to search in
  • librarians often use their discovery to find information on titles, coverage, URL, ... because that is what the patron is seeing as well
  • A to Z lists would not help in the use cases we are looking at
  • currently, there are more options to find information on journals than for ebooks, e.g. in Germany with the ezb (electronic journals digital library)
  • Zorian: you could look up information in source KB
  • Felix in chat: You can have different coverage in the ERM compared to the KB
  • Further discussion here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qB7xfOYxA33AHSLlWB26sDHkOekXJqxT3avMcoMcbG8/edit?usp=sharing
  • document will be kept open to gather more feedback | this will be kept open as homework

Chat

14:01:47 Von  Martina Tumulla  an  Alle:
    Today's agenda: 2023-02-22 - ERM meeting
14:26:29 Von  Tatjana Clemens  an  Alle:
    B1 because the screen appears „tidier“ and you can tell at first glance which content the product contains and the width of the display is well used
14:28:03 Von  Felix Hemme (ZBW)  an  Alle:
    To me resource type has nothing to do with the general description field so I'd vote to not include it within the description field.
14:31:53 Von  Gill Osguthorpe  an  Alle:
    Thanks for everyone's feedback so far 🙂
14:41:33 Von  Felix Hemme (ZBW)  an  Alle:
    I switched snapshot back to english!
14:52:45 Von  Felix Hemme (ZBW)  an  Alle:
    You can have different coverage in the ERM compared to the KB

Attendees list