Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

2022-03-10 CDL Sub-group Meeting Notes

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »


Date


Zoom

https://zoom.us/j/337279319 (pw: folio-lsp)

Attendees



Discussion Items

TimeItemWhoDescriptionGoals/Info/notes
2minAdministrivia

Jana Freytag


Note taker:  Ian Ibbotson (Use this one) 



Continue to gather requirements and discussion







Meeting Notes

Attendees : Andy Horbal, Sarah Seestone, Jana Freytag, Dwayne Swigert, Laszlo Jakusovsky, David Bottoff, Andrea Loigman, Kimie Matsudo Kester, Sebastian Hammer Notes: Ian Ibbotson

Scope:

  • DB: Initial scope vs Ultimate Scope - Ultimate scope is full CDL/ILL but initially scope is internal.
  • AL : Stages - start with CDL from our own offsite collections for our own people
    • Then grow out into consortial ILL
  • SS: Very much internal - Stanford Collections, internally - maybe eventually more broadly
  • DB: Do / Don't we need to draw a distinction between ILL and internal
    • Chicago - CDL for course reserves
    • AH: Cornell - What CDL is may depend upon what is delivered
    • Knowing what we are building towards may help institutions plan / decide
  • AL: Draw a distinction between whole collections being sequestered vis item-by-item level 
  • DB: We should not draw the internal scope too narrowly to begin with
  • Some current practice using GoogleDrive links to canvas in course-ware
    • Sequester items for the duration of the course - check items out to proxy account
    • Successful 2-3k items on course reserve loan using this approach
  • DB affirmed need for this to be generalized - because different institutions will want to have radically different policies - E.G. Paging/Holds on items.
    • Initial scope - not a delivery platform inside folio
    • DB Question : Will this include a delivery platform
  • SS: Question - what mechanism is being used to make items unavailable currently
    • DB - pseudo patron
  • SS: requirement - currently using ILS for charging to the user
    • DB - rather see FOLIO develop something that can handle a better fidelity model of the distinction between sequestering the physical and loaning the digital.
  • A question around the separation between physical and electronic items
    • SS the challenge is that - absolute tie-in between A-physical-item and A-electronic-item - and have 1 item with a mode-of-access property.
    • SH : Aspects of own-to-loan ratios 
      • DB +1 own to loan ratio is key
        • Know that the physical item is sequestered
        • know that the physical item is loaned
    • AL : Asked SS about stanford Differentiating between physical and digital loans
      • And noted that this is important
      • AL : Usage - do we need more phyiscal or more electronic copies - we need to know when a different mode of access is used.
    • Check out to pseudo paton - then layer some record-keeping on top of that - Symphony doesn't count the bindery/pseudo patron loan as a use. hold module can tell who held an item.
    • Implementation can be brittle if datasets get out of sync



List of requirements:

Requirements should contain (needs more detail):

  • scope
  • interoperability
  • ILS vs other systems
  • where are the boundaries?
  • Statistics and Reporting should be part of this too
RequirementNotePerson




















  • No labels