Versions Compared

Old Version 22

changes.mady.by.user Dolly Lopez

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Jessica Hartwigsen

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Google Form

CDI Feedback Form

ERM Testing

Working Docs

EX Libris Known Issues

Known CDI Issues and Gaps

CDI for Consortia

Webinar Link

IssueReported issues

Status:

We were expecting since full text is activated that meant our NZ collections should be discoverable in Primo. I understand that analysts will need to look at specific examples, but it seems this is not working as expected - at least not for all the collections. This means we will need to report issues as we find them.

My assumption is that we have to check that NZ collections are discoverable. Does Ex Libris have any instructions we can use to do this? With merged records and the use of metadata from different sources, I can see how this would be difficult to verify that a specific collection is discoverable or not.

Adding instructions Full text links were appearing when there was no full text

“ebook says "full text" but no full text access for a collection we don't have CDI. This is one example of records appearing in our Primo with this particular collection - TN_cdi_askewsholts_vlebook. The record says "full text available" but the full record says "no full text available".”

This collection was causing a lot of issues with the full text available displaying when it should not.

Case #00855574

Ex Libris remove the Vlebooks collection from CDI

Database content not discoverable in Primo. (Updated 7/06/2020)

If the special “Full Text active in CDI only: Yes” does not exist in your IZ for Electronic Collection Type: database, then it must be inherited by individual libraries from the NZ or must be activated in the IZ by individual libraries to be discoverable. Complication: the bib record must be unsupressed which is against policy. Recommendation in progress.

Case #852010, 851956. etc.

Reported to Ex Libris. Narrowed the issue down to Databases. Testing out possible solutions.

Slowly developing instructions to check for discoverabilty of NZ collections here.

Full correspondence can be found here.

Proxied OA collections (Updated 7/06/2020)

“16 out of 70 cases (23%) center around this issue. According to ex libris support, there is a "mismatch between the Alma collection being marked as Open Access and the CDI records not being marked as such in the metadata" We asked CDI_Info about how widespread the issue is.


CDI_Info response: “The content team is aware of this. I think there is an issue with certain collections not being fully open access and it is difficult to reflect this correctly on Alma. If these are collections that can be split into open access and none open access items the content team will do this but this is not always possible. The plan at the moment is to flag collections where the split is not possible as partially open access in Alma.”

Case #852731, 851991, 850959, 850506, 850034, 847763, etc.

In progress…

Full correspondence can be found here.

Full Text Availability indication flag in brief record/No link in full record. (Updated 7/06/2020)

About 26/70 (37%) were about this issue. We understand that this can be complicated to address however we thought we'd share some steps we've taken to do our part. First, we updated the " We subscribe to only some titles in this collection" for ProQuest and Gale Aggregator Packages Linkresolver type in the NZ to Yes instead of No….My question is: do you know if this will help and also are there other factors we should take into consideration?

CDI_Info response:

For aggregator collections which have some content without identifiers and which use the link resolver the match can be difficult and fail. So if such collections are set generally to all content as full text available, and some content cannot find a match you have the false positives. While the content team is working on improving this over time I doubt that this is something we can entirely fix. So for collections that have such content it is better to use the selective flag as you suggest in your email. That will definitely make it more accurate. It will lead to some content not being flagged as available so the downside is that you have false negatives. But you have no false positives anymore that can lead to linking problems.

Case# 854035, 852793, 853274, 852728, 851265, etc

Testing different solutions

Full correspondence can be found here.

Q&A

Expand
titleAre all of our campuses registered under the same customer?

Answer (2/27/2020): There is one customer and the other are the institutions that are part of the "California State University (System)", that is mean that the campuses are under the same client.

...

Expand
titleWill Open Access collections be automatically enabled?

Answer at 2:10. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleIs Hathitrust currently set for full-text search as opposed to metadata search? I've read that there are plans to update this to metadata search but is there a timeline?

Answer at 2:25. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleIt looks like the primo search scope will factor in this as well. I read some documentation that recommended that libraries set their search to filtered search. Could you expand on that?

Answer at 3:10. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleIt's my understanding that "All collections that are set to full-text available will be automatically be searchable in unexpanded search regardless if the “Yes” checkbox for "Active for search in CDI" is checked or not." Is that correct?

Answer at 8:45. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleCan you walk us through what the differences are between full-text availability and active search in CDI and how these affect expanded search versus filtered search in Primo? Specifically, does this mean we only control search for the expanded search?

Answer at 9:10. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleThis Fully Flexible documentation states, "There is no need to check which other collections to activate to achieve the best possible alternative coverage for such collections" However, in the webinar at 28.46, the presenter says we will need to take care of alternative coverage. Can we get clarification?

Answer: 11:05. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleWhat would the migration process look like if an individual member library DID NOT have the “Inherit Consortium Central Office resource checked in their PCI instance?

Answer at 26:20. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleWhat would the migration process look like if an individual member library DID have the “Inherit Consortium Central Office resource checked in their PCI instance?

Answer at 26:30. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleI've heard that the default setting for CDI is full flexible for a consortia. I'm curious about this because if a consortia is set up so each institution is maintaining its own CDI in its IZ, then, shouldn't the institution be able to decide which setting it wants?

Answer at 29.30. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleWhat is the CDI impact on NZ collections? Will NZ collections be duplicated in the IZ? Or will NZ collections remain in the NZ and the NZ manager will have to create different groups in the NZ based on what institutions would like suppressed or not? How does Fully Flexible vs Easy Active factor into this? What would the development process and timeline look like if we’d want to member libraries to choose between Fully-Flexible and EasyActive in a Network Zone?

Answer at 31.48. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

Expand
titleI would like clarification that that we will continue to have the option of each institution activating their own resources AND choosing whether to go with Fully Flexible or Easy Activation. If that is the case, it seems we would want a conversation about whether we want

Answer at 34.40. Webinar Link. Written transcript.

The ERM group has proposed that Central Office/Consortia PCI activations for ECC and Opt-ins are moved to the Network Zone. Not in the initial migration but as a phased process. Currently all institutions in a consortium (connected to one Alma network) need to be on the same setting. So we will need to decide as a consortia if we want to remain Fully Flexible or Easy Active. If we move to Easy Active we will not not be able to revert back to Fully Flexible (source: [ALMA-L] CDI - Where is the Easy Active setting?)

...

Expand
titleDid we, as a consortium, decide to inherit CDI activation from the NZ, or not?

Yes, we are inhering inheriting the CDI activation from the NZ. If full-text access is set up in the NZ, resources from those collections should be found within libraries Primo instance if they are sharing the collection. Instructions on checking NZ discoverability can be found here.

EDIT: There is an actual “parameter ‘cdi_consortia_inheritance’. It can be set to ‘N’ (no inheritance) or ‘Y’ (inheritance)” in each library’s Alma instance. The ERM committee has not recommended that library’s turn this on since full text activation should take care discoverability. CAVEAT: we just learned from Ex Libris that the same does not apply to Databases with CDI Type: Full Text Collection. The contents of these databases are not discoverable in Primo even if it shared by libraries in the NZ.

Image Added

Expand
titleI pulled a list of active for CSULA in the NZ. I noticed about half the titles were set to yes for "Active for Search in CDI". Can you tell me your criteria for setting an e-collection to yes/no for active for search in CDI?

The ERM group has set all NZ managed collections to In CDI:Yes. The reason a collection is set to no is usually is because the collection itself is not set up for CDI. Please see below for an example. As long as a collection is set as full-text active, then the resources should be discoverable within OneSearch/Primo. Now, the In CDI:yes does affect expanded search so those collections were set to yes if it was possible to do so. This setting also has an effect if we ever want to suppress discoverability in the future.

EDIT: The ERM group has set all NZ managed collections to In CDI:Yes. Since no libraries have set the actual “parameter ‘cdi_consortia_inheritance’ to yes, this does not actually do anything. As long as a collection is set as full-text active, then the resources should be discoverable within OneSearch/Primo. Please see below for a caveat. Now, if a library were to set their parameter to ‘cdi_consortia_inheritance’ to yes, then In CDI:yes does affect expanded search.This setting also has an effect if we ever want to suppress discoverability in the future.

CAVEAT: we just learned from Ex Libris that the same does not apply to Databases with CDI Type: Full Text Collection. The contents of these databases are not discoverable in Primo even if it shared by libraries in the NZ.