StaffAgenda042009

April 23

BHL Staff Call Agenda

Round-Robin

Status updates from the group. I'm interested to know who's doing QA and/or Portal Edits...details about issues can be discussed below.

Quality Review:

What is the level of acceptance rate?
BHL allowable standards? / What are BHL parameters for rejects and how do they compare with IA?
e.g. SIL example of a rejected from IA book because of size.
e.g. loose/detached boards
Reach group consensus re: coordinating QA statistical sampling by everyone

Portal Enumeration & Chronology Editing Issues:

Portal Display Standards Standards+for+Bibliographic+Items :

(a) For a multi-volume title with index volume(s), should the index volume(s) display in the list of volumes:
- after the volume at the end of the range of years of the index volume?
-above volume 1, all of the index volume(s) together?
-below the final volume, all of the index volume(s) together?

(b) Multi-volume titles usually display in vertically arranged list form : v. 1, v. 2, and so on...
Some titles also now display in list form as v.1 (1901-1902), v.2 (1902-1903)... and this reflects the standards Joe has presented us with.
How do we get multi-volume titles (already scanned which do not conform to the standard) to display according to the standard?
Does one need to go through every item record in the portal and edit to add the “(1901-1902)” to the right of v.1 type of edit? …more info: When in the admin module, looking at an item record for a volume, in those which have been wonderfetched, the year field is populated. For those which were scanned pre-wonderfetching, the year field is not populated. In the item records with the year field populated, can the year be joined in the display with the lone v. 1, v. 2, v. 3 in the correct syntax: ie: v. 1 (1902), v. 2 (1903)...? ...also, Will we need to edit by hand pre-wonderfetch volumes to conform with the standard?

Big Picture Questions:

What are we trying to achieve in the portal / What are we trying to get the records to do exactly and how does this influence approach to standards for enumeration and chronology?
Do we want to move towards using more structured portal editing fields to manage standards described above, i.e. required fields and formatting for "v. " and "# (year)" ==> dummy-proof portal editing

Portal Requests

Initial workflow ideas:

receive emails for requests with subject line: "BHL Request"
use Refworks to manage bibliographic data
send stock email response to requester to streamline management of expectations To DRAFT email for group editing
push Refworks dbase online for all BHLers to see
1. Interactivity issues? Will BHLers be able to claim requests, edit dbase from web interface, etc.
2. streamline with permissions...??? (Dedupe Group may address this as well)
coordinate with libraries to get request fulfilled...TBD What's best communication method? phone? email? listserve? RSS feed somewhere?

CiteBank feedback status

Has anyone had a chance to play around and upload articles, bibliographies, create a group, etc?
Volunteers to help me create CiteBank test group (must be willing to get into the sandbox and play)

More discussion on Frankenbooks

Group consensus on approach?