ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE
SHARED CONTENT TEAM MEETING
10:00-11:00 a.m., September 21, 2016
Present: Gordon Aamot (Chair, University of Washington), Serin Anderson (UW Tacoma), Zeb Evelhoch (Central Washington University), Tina Hovekamp (Council Liaison, Central Oregon Community College), Corey Murata (University of Washington), Steve Perisho, (Seattle Pacific University), Roger Stelk (Whitman College), Kathi Carlisle Fountain (Program Manager, Orbis Cascade Alliance)
Absent: Linda Crook (Lane Community College), Kristi DeShazo (Oregon Health & Science University)
Notes: Serin. Next team member in the alphabetical rotation is Linda.
1) Working Groups – reports, updates
E-Book Working Group (Kathi for Kristi)
- Wrapped up the first working group meeting with the new roster. Great level of participation with the new group – off to a great start.
- YBP/Wiley/Alliance proposal. Kathi and Krist have been working with YBP on a proposal to partner with Wiley for the evidenced based acquisition model. The working group reviewed the proposal and provided feedback. Wiley, YBP and Kathi have a meeting scheduled to discuss possible future collaboration.
- Steve asked what the benefits of the joint work would be. Kathi outlined three main benefits.
- Alliance/Wiley holdings would be recorded in Gobi
- For libraries with YBP profiling – would allow local decisions on what to do with Wiley content based on the Alliance service
- The Alliance would also have the ability to do some level of profiling (much like the current DDA).
Consortial Alma Collection Development Working Group (Corey)
- The working group's final report outlining the state of the network zone licensing module needs to be wrapped up and then shared with SCT, Orbis and Ex-Libris. At this point, without any new charge or work, there may not a continued need for this group (however it's constituted – no new group members). The report would be the final product.
- Kathi – there's also a question about whether the Alliance should continue working on it separate from the COE initiative. It seems like it might be a good move to shift this conversation to one where other consortium are involved in the conversation. Not sure what the future conversation would look like.
- General consensus that the working group has essentially expired.
- ACTION: Kathi will communicate out to the Working Group.
2) HathiTrust Investigation – Update
- Kathi reported on her investigation into the technical specifics of possible consortial HathiTrust membership.
- HathiTrust requires shibboleth “in common” authentication. https://www.incommon.org/
- Twelve Alliance institutions currently have the ability:Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, Portland State, Reed, Western Washington, Washington State University, University of Washington, University of Idaho, [others?]
- Other schools would have to be able to implement the Shibboleth authentication to join.
- Corey explained that it's a single sign on / lower level authentication service than ezproxy. It would require institutions to implement significant campus-wide changes for authentication.
- SPU, for example, would need an “in common” membership for Shibboleth for this to work.
- Kathi noted that a single entity partnership has a significant reduction in fees.
- Gordon raised a question about whether there would be an opt-in model for consortial membership versus an all-in model. Answer: Not really there yet. Right now, the goal is really about identifying the technical feasibility - about who would pursue the local implementation and be eligible to participate.
- Corey – UW just got a call for interest for participation in the HathiTrust Shared Print repository. Like WEST, but for monographs. There's a lot of detail that is somewhat confusing about how it would operate. Currently in phase 1 – planning phase to identify potential participants. There would be some possible benefits, but also some real implications if they chose to participate. See linked document for more information: https://www.hathitrust.org/files/sharedprintreport.pdf
- Gordon – expectation is to have a couple of million volumes in the first couple of years. Probably relatively few institutions retaining physical volumes. Would potentially have ripple effects for the consortial membership.
- Gordon – thanks to Kathi for the initial legwork.
3) Joint Working Group on Improved Sharing – Discussion of Draft Charge
- Gordon - The initial draft sent out prior to the meeting was based on a model from another joint working group in addition to some offline discussions between Kathi, Gordon, Steve and Serin. There was an attempt to tie in some SCT past work (shared ecosystem, collection development polices, etc.), and that the goal related to licensing best practices was a late addition.
- Serin and Steve had both volunteered to be on the working group previously; however, still need to identify discovery & delivery people to add to the working group.
- Group discussion surrounding the three main tasks in the draft charge.
- Some concern expressed that it's an ambitious charge. May need to prioritize the three points that are listed. It seems like a lot for a group to do in one year - especially if the group doesn't meet very frequently.
- The working group would not be responsible for drafting the licensing best practices. If that is a goal that the group picks up, it would be completed by the SCT.
- Steve – What really needs to be done first? Gordon – 1 & 2 are the things that we told Council that we would work on. First two (loan rules and Occam's Reader) would be the top priority.
- Kathi shared some initial concerns from Discovery & Delivery
- We need to have very clear expectations on what kind of expertise would be needed from D&D.
- Working group members wouldn't necessarily be from the Team, but might be institutional representatives with the requisite expertise.
- Group discussion on needed skills:
- It would be good to have someone who has an understanding of what is and is not working (like making things renewable). Possibly framed as making the experience more like circulation rather than ILL.
- Overall, having members with direct Alma/Primo experience related to resource sharing, loan rules, Summit borrowing and impacts on workflows.
- Charge number 1 may need to be restructured in order to provide more details about what exactly we want to be done.We could outline broad/philosophical outcomes with potential areas of investigation as examples.
- Possible examples included Summit renewals and altering loan periods
- Regarding process – the draft charge should be reworked and shared with D&D in the final stages.
- Regarding charge #2, Occam's Reader and ILL. The only experience within the Alliance might be at the UW and UO. Do we need to specify the need for someone with those skills?
- A working group member with ILL experience will definitely be needed.
- Given the limited number of people with direct Occam's Reader experience, it may be that the working group will connect with Alliance and non-Alliance institutions to gather information on Occam's Reader rather than requiring someone with that experience to be on the group.Noted that gather experience from GWLA and non-GWLA libraries might be different.
- May also be useful to do a scan to see who is actively using Occam's Reader. Unsure if GWLA is still using it. Are non-GWLA libraries using it? Part of the viability is how many people are using it.
- Small group will take the discussion to try and modify the charge to address outcomes with examples and come back to the group (will send out before the next meeting).
4) Idea for New SCT Goal for FY17 - Alliance Licensing Best Practices
5) Alliance Last Copy and 3-Copy Guidelines – Discussion On How to Proceed
6) Updates, Announcements