Intota – Reality check for assessment of Intota

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N33uLgxuNUevku1TOaHClY9pUcdapFk5TQxiyTJcqko/edit

License data – Let’s continue our discussions about updating and entering licenses into RM.  Liisa and I started this document:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yTR8-d0Om-tplRbOCzNYikSqdR6ZWXWzXEJLOVnpQro/edit?usp=sharin
• This includes all of the fields that are available in RM license records.  We want to get some consensus about:
  • What fields do we care about, what ones can we ignore.
  • Is there data we want to include that there is not an official field for, e.g. Text/Data mining provision?
  • Are there any standards we should agree to, e.g. naming conventions, etc…
• Then use that to:
  • Develop a coversheet/checklist for license review.
  • Select a few licenses to start with that we should have identical agreements, like Springer, etc… to begin reviewing and seeing if we agree on what some interpretations might be.

Naming conventions : 

• License Name: Vendor - Sub tile (i.e. Primary, Amendment 5, etc...) - Product (if appropriate)- Institution?  (Cornell or Columbia?) - Consortium?
• License Type: Indicate Primary, Amendment, etc... or is this a misuse of the field? Values here could be Primary Negotiated, Amendment, Click Through, Shrinkwrap, etc..