...
Campuses can migrate whichever RLF records they wish, with particular attention to Special Collections resources. They should ensure that RLF items have a location that clearly indicates that the resource is offsite at an RLF so that any future decisions around RLF inventory can be more easily managed. Campuses should be mindful of the fact that there will likely be changes to how RLF data is handled after migrationtest load and cutover.
Reasoning:
Some campuses have already deleted all of their non-Special Collections RLF records and not all campuses will have the same capacity to separate their local RLF data from the rest of their records. In addition, the local campus version of a record for an RLF resource may or may not have the same OCLC number or the same level of description. Special Collections resources in particular may have fuller descriptions in local campus ILSs and so it will be worthwhile to let campuses decide whether they want to migrate their records. There are also varying needs to retain publicly-visible provenance data at some campuses. Lastly, since the final decisions around how RLF data will be managed in a SILS environment will not be made until Phase 5, RMFG agrees that it doesn’t make sense to try to find one prescriptive way to handle that data. RMFG recognizes that there are some clear impacts on discovery when multiple records are loaded for the same resource but would prefer to address those issues by suppressing/re-linking some combination of bibliographic or holdings records instead of leaving important campus data out of the migration.
Assessment:
RMFG will work with FFFG and Discovery will test workflows for Special Collections items to figure out how to handle the unique needs of those items.
Background
ExLibris documentation: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/100Managing_Multiple_Institutions_Using_a_Network_Zone/03_Managing_Records_in_Consortia/010Network-Managed_Records_in_a_Network_Zone)
...