Recording duties will be shared on a rotating basis alphabetically by last name. Meeting minutes will be distributed electronically via the RUL listserv and staff website.
The Web Board's Search Team met with Agnew, Purger, Just, and Fetzer last week to discuss future plans for search and discovery at RUL. The Search Team noted the challenges of trying to develop an integrated library search interface while the groups responsible for maintaining its various underlying systems (catalog, subscription databases, institutional repository, federated search, link resolver, etc.) continue to be structurally and administratively separated. The Team expressed the need for a more holistic approach to library search and discovery that would include the development of an action plan articulating a unified vision, set of goals, and requirements. The AULs agreed to refer the matter to Cabinet for further consideration. The outcome could have a potentially significant impact on the future charge and composition of DIG.
With the retirement of its former convener (Cassel) and the withdrawal of two additional members (Mullen and Gasparotto), the group discussed whether it was necessary to recruit new members. Since all three vacancies are from public services, it was suggested that USC be asked to appoint new members. However, given that the charge and composition of the group could be changing in the near future, it was decided to postpone such a request until the next fiscal year.
At the same time, it was acknowledged that some members may have other commitments or interests that may inhibit their full participation on DIG. Deodato encouraged any other members who may prefer not to "renew" their membership for next year to let him know.
It was noted that the database titles on the EBSCOhost "Choose Databases" screen are currently out of order due to the addition of new titles resulting from the recent merger with Wilson. Hoover will re-alphabetize the title list.
At the previous meeting Deodato presented the results of DIG's link resolver testing. Although the process was informative, the data itself turned out to be unreliable due to a lack of clarity in the testing protocol and notable inaccuracies in data collection. Rather than attempt to salvage the data, the group decided to revise the protocol, conduct a group training session, and re-test. The project, however, is being put on hold in order to focus on Searchlight configuration issues in preparation for the website refresh and beta implementation of the search tabs.
The group began reviewing a checklist of Searchlight configuration tasks and their current status.
|Evaluate current subject categories||Wherever possible EHIS subject categories should reflect the same categories used to organize databases and indexes on the website. Warwick will review and revise EHIS categories for consistency. Any changes to categorization will necessitate updates to the advanced Searchlight interface and the search tabs (both soon to be released). Hoover will explore scripting options for automating such changes in the future.|
|Evaluate databases in each subject category||Database assignment has traditionally been decided by selectors. Once Warwick revises the subject categories, Deodato will forward them to the appropriate selector for database assignment. If no response is received, DIG will make the assignments. In order to streamline this process in the future, McDonald will add a question to the Database Description form specifically asking if the resource requires a Searchlight connector and, if so, which subject categories should it appear in.|
|Evaluate order of subject categories||Fine as is.|
|Define Tier 1 and Tier 2 connectors||It was suggested that defining connector tiers would offer no additional performance benefits to warrant the effort. The group agreed to take no action at this time but may revisit again in the future.|
Due to time constraints, the group decided to continue review of the remaining checklist items at the next meeting.
Smulewitz expressed a need for clarity in how we define databases for the purposes of collecting statistics. How do we distinguish between indexes, journal packages, ebooks, and electronic reference collections in usage reporting? How do we compare usage metrics for dissimilar electronic resources? Due to time constraints, full discussion of this item was postponed until the next meeting.
There will be no meeting in June because the convener will be away. In the meantime, Deodato will draft the annual report and circulate it via email for input.
The group decided to keep the same meeting time and location for next year: second Wednesdays from 10am-12pm in LSM Special Collection Room.
Meeting adjourned at 12:00pm
Respectfully submitted by Joseph Deodato