Nothing new to report at this time.
Reserves media can't play on mobile devices due to flash. There is a technical limitation.
MG Asked Steve Z. and Bob Warwick regarding the government docs cataloging process to see how videos can be handled.
Batch scripts are used to identify and isolate problem titles (e.g. duplicate titles, rare formats with issues). Lists are generated as a result of this separation process for special handling.
Post processing the script file, there doesn't appear to be a review process, and records become immediately accessible in the catalog, although most records sampled appear to be fine. Per Gracemary, this is because we receive records for e-items based on a profile. We purchase records for all electronic formats and tangible items are manually cataloged. We receive, as a depository, 94% of what the government publishes. While a cursory review for e-items occurs, the process for carefully reviewing each and every record in a systematic fashion would be too time consuming, adding to already significant backlogs for cataloging in an already labor intensive process. Currently, thousands of govdocs are pending.
In looking at the video records:
Gracemary reports a "changing of the guard" in the committee chair, after a period of no activity. Jane Hutchinson has since stepped forward to take on these duties, and Gracemary has reached out to her. A meeting should be forthcoming.
There is still some question as to what is the operation procedure for negotiation of purchases. This question has gone to the executive committee. There is a lot of mention regarding a similar consortium in New York State, and whether we should become part of this initiative as perhaps there are better buying opportunities there. However, upon further investigation it turns out this initiative is highly restrictive, and not well liked by vendors, perhaps not making it as great an opportunity as initially thought.
These issues should be discussed in the forthcoming meeting, at which point Gracemary will have something to report.
Currently negotiations regarding purchases have been limited to pricing schemes based on volume (i.e. number of users). There's currently been little mention of rights and allowances for things like streaming.
The pricing and purchase documents are very loose and ambiguous, not very technical documents, and aren't even signed. Up until this year, there's been a sheet where VALE partners would indicate yes/no in regards to commitments to buy titles, and number of titles each member would purchase. Many of these agreements would roll over from year to year. However, these commitments have not always been followed... we might not commit to buy something in September, and yet buy something anyway in March.
We are suffering by this piecemeal approach, and need to communicate better with selectors if we cluster orders and adhere to commitments and group buys more closely, instead of buying on a sporadic, rush basis. We also need a workflow for better dealing with restrictions, and documenting them in our records.
For a future media team meeting (preferably the next one), we should have a discussion on generating a checklist, template or best practice to offer to NBCG and selectors throughout RUL on considering such issues as perpetual streaming rights, licenses, VALE discounts and bulk purchases, to make them aware of these processes and how to better take advantage of these opportunities. Ultimate outcome would be that down the road, we would hold a session on these issues where selectors would attend. The team should also discuss the matter with Tom Izbicki, and bring him into the discussion. Participation from the budget office might also be helpful.
Nothing new at this time. The template, which was submitted in February, is still under review and we are awaiting the results of that review from the Copyright Licensing Librarian.
A workflow analysis meeting was held in August 2011 for RUcore media, and notes were sent out recently by J. Otto from this meeting.
Some issues discussed:
So far the media team knows of no new developments on these points since the meeting.