OhioLINK DMS Meeting Notes June 2, 2009
Database Management and Standards (DMS) Meeting, June 1, 2009
Discussion of DMS strategic actions and role of the committee in the consortium
a. Review "Action Plan" presented at June 2008 meeting (attached), which was based on analysis of DMS-related implications from all 16 "Visioning task
force" reports. What's been done; what needs to be done; what's going on elsewhere? (Margaret - report on the survey can go here)
b. Review expected recommendations from Group TS TF2; CatArch, and Discovery Layer TFs (drafts not available yet, but many DMS members participated in the
TFs and can discuss).
-- Expertise. Most important item.
-- Electronic Resources Management (ERM) Task Force to be developed within DMS
-- YBP approval plans coordination. Twenty percent discount is in jeapardy due to fewer books being purchased. Shelf-ready books. Idea to have an OLINK
account, for better coordination.
-- Training should be coordinated via ONET. This goes across OLINK committees
-- Foreign Language Acquisitions. Should be low priority. Materials purchased is heavily English-language. Not a widespread issue.
-- Binding. Not a widespread issue. HF Group -- do we use this?
-- item add: batch cataloging and batch loading
c. Revisit December proposal to LAC re: support for consortial resource cataloging, in light of TF developments. (Also attached)
d. Discussion of the role of DMSC in the consortium, and what the committee should be doing going forward
Depositories will have their own III system. Materials sent to regional depositories will become the depositories' property, not the institution that sent
them. In other words, no return policy. You would have to interlibrary-loan the material. Issue: what to do with records in contributing library's system.
Strip them from OCLC.
ACRL statistics ask or shared ownership.
Cataloging task force. You have a long time to contribute records to the central catalog. You have the option to contribute records.
ONET is going out of business (??)
Write local practices policies, and send them to central for documentation. (e.g. data one moves around, past practices that have been superseded).
Tom Sanville
OLINK budget. $5 million. from $7 plus million. 7.5 percent cut in EJC. Cut is equivalent to cutting Elsevier.
CAT-ARChitecture. central catalog. one bib concept problematic. Desire is to have what III has and more. Cf. OPAL.
Individual libraries should discuss these documents.
Reinventing OhioLINKand DMSC document. discussion
-- disconnect between DMS and DRMC.
-- disconnect between instit repositories and e-resources.
-- MarcEdit uses RDF for Dublin Core. No XSLT exists to go from MARCXML to Qualified Dublin Core.
-- approach YBP about statewide resource sharing
Comments