LTAG

Web conference 4-19-05

Working Agenda/ Notes

2 hrs

 

 

1.     Old Bus – SOPAG Meeting and

 LTAG assignments

A.   Software Sharing - posted

B.    Web Conferencing – eval request

C.   Scenario Planning - optional

 

 

2.     Action on LTAG Shared Systems page - next steps?  Marketing?

A.   Ask Bernie about mail list – CDC, HOPS, HOTS, SOPAG, etc

B.    Reasons for page in announcement …get SOPAG to send out…Diane to draft.

C.   Provide in page in PDF/HTML instead of .doc

3.     Evaluation of Web Conferencing for SOPAG

a.      Testing Oracle’s product today as selected after Stephen evaluated 6 other products and found this one to have the most features.  Today we used it in a simple desktop application sharing mode, with chat, white board and poling.  We combined it with a standard conference call.  (Mac client coming in fall.)

b.     User instructions available at Oracle website for training, but we may need a simplified version.

c.     UCLA will host it but will need to assign access passwords to each campus who can then host WC’s at will

d.     UCLA experience running Sharepoint with self administration by each of 50 team leaders has been good.  So local WC owners should work.

e.      IP Phone and recording is an option but we are not testing at this time

f.       Another option is a MAC utility which enables publishing desktop on Web.  This is simpler but doesn’t have power of Oracle WC.  What do we need considering our users?

g.     UL’s meet every other month…so more frequent use may help training

h.     Perhaps we should provide a trainer on-line for early meetings to get them started??  Stephen trains Terry R, who shows SOPAG…then to ULs??

i.        Future demo of Sharepoint new version (by Stephen) which has strong groupware but weak WC.

j.        WC anonymous pole of group on value of this product/ experience conducted at the end of the meeting (results attached) showed almost all 1) liked this product.

 

4.     Scenario Planning...or not. Use LTAG expertise to project possible technology impacts.  Preliminary discussion of each to gauge possible significance followed.

A.   One catalog for all of UC

                                                              i.      One catalog (ILS) for all campus

                                                            ii.      Possible systems - ExLib, Innovative, Voyager

                                                          iii.      Integrated catalog database of all items on all campus, circ local.  This contrasts with current distributed separate d/b and local circ, with union catalog (Melvyl).

                                                         iv.      Can we use virtual catalogs synchronized, local funds and bindery, purchasing, authentication systems, e-res local systems?

                                                           v.      However currently we have overhead with integration with CDL.  Remember our goal of one university, one library, one authentication (federated sign on – Shipolith’s edu-person).

                                                         vi.       Policy coordination is a biggy, requiring common circ rules.  Catalog rules collaboration is in the mill.

                                                       vii.      Google has shown that scale issues are big deal, but catalog authority issues still needed, so collaboration is needed to get efficiencies of scale

                                                     viii.      What are user expectations – is this better for them?

                                                         ix.      Can we go with federated searching instead of Melvyl single d/b model?  Data standards – how rigorous?  Using other data besides MARC, like title pages, images, etc, can improve searching? (ala Roy Tennant songs)

B.    All print located only at Regional Facilities

                                                              i.      E-journal stuff  is an obvious yes

                                                            ii.      All print – will need expansion of facilities?

                                                          iii.      Faculty concerns

                                                         iv.      Irrelevant where print is – as more online is available

                                                           v.      Keep core on hand – Humanities lag science about 5 years- more depend on print materials.

                                                         vi.      UCSC- is currently planning to expand space for local collection, this is an example of how Admin lags these trends

                                                       vii.      Is it easier to move materials to another location (RF) or apply tech/scanning locally at each campus

                                                     viii.      What is Merced’s strategy?  No print journals so far thus saving space for bound print which is big space factor. Will focus on monographs usage for now.  Given that every 5-10 years technology changes, may move to more use of off site storage.

                                                         ix.      Usage of Region Facilites – we see an upward trend each year

                                                           x.      Should we discuss further– Unanimous Yes

 

C.   Combination of A and B – obvious.

D.   All SOPAG committees use web conferencing. Premature to discuss at this time; maybe latter after we have more experience.

E.    Replace all discovery systems with Google Scholar

                                                              i.      What is CDL doing – we know Peter (out sick) is up to something?

                                                            ii.      LTAG discussion needed because of potential to impact systems locally, networks, client tools, would like to avoid surprises, curiosity, spreading the word, start discussions locally and with other reps, include our input, and help position campuses

 

F.    Other - technology just over the horizon with big bang for the Library ??

 

G.   Pole of Scenario Planning options.  At end of meeting an anonymous WC pole (results attached) show strong interest in pursuing A through E.

 

5.     LTAG Mission – 30 min

A.   Current Mission

                                                              i.      Pro

1.     Debunking CDL activities – e.g Service Layer

2.     Watchdog to remind SOPAG

3.     Information sharing between campuses

4.     Resource for SOPAG

                                                            ii.      Con

1.     Travel

2.     Time

B.    CDL/ SOPAG Model – options – not discussed

 

 

6.  Future Meetings – Why, How, When, Where

§        Once a year gathering

§        Web Conference calls – at least 2-3/yr for at least 4 meetings total

§        Book meetings 6 months in advance (chair)

§        Keep WC’s to 1 hour, max 2 hrs (this time we lost about 20 min playing with new technology)

§        Email gets lost in daily priorities so WC’s are better

§         Travel is tiring.  Could switch meeting north and south  and meet at airport to save time but at what cost?  Is one airport hotel room cheaper than cost of second of the two trips currently authorized. Irvine (John Wayne) is an option….but access not good for all airlines.  What about LAX?  Fresno goes to LAX first always.  Several can drive there.  Local room rates (Stephen ck)

§        Another WC in a month or June.  Need to pick some dates soon for a Fall meeting (Sept).

 

7.  Information Sharing and Other/Future Topics (saved for future meetings or email) ?

A.   CDL related stuff: What's going on with VDX – Terry Toy

B.    NCIP - Terry Toy and  Diane

C.   CDL Service Layer Model - implications for campuses - Luc

D.   Campus new Library IT issues – Campus role call

 

Attached: – Snapshots of Post Conference Poling reports.