Page Comparison

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who

Notes

Discussion

Actions

Announcements

Share short pieces of need-to-know information

5 min

All

• Upcoming meetings with ExL (complete list)

RMFG and AEFG Decisions

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oN3SVAGySGceMQzw1hrOTPOwBauQO8rxHX_7zDgQfMc/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qEe-LeTvJo9GcLSR24YKGKwVURzCuo-CHtkg6L3G6mk/edit

5 min

All

• Discussion of free vs OA content-- who makes decisions/definitions. Hopefully not catalogers!

• Any 856 that you don’t want to risk losing, copy to 956. Or create portfolios (if already in Alma). Local decision.

  • For Alma campuses, worth testing creation of portfolios in the testload-- easier now rather than later.

  • MARCIVE print records-- almost all of these have a link in them to the online version of the record. Might need to be a MARCIVE specific discussion about how to handle MARCIVE.

  • There’s a MARCIVE collection in the test load that can be used to collect OCLC numbers that UCSD will be contributing.

Post-Data Cleanup meeting discussion

Determine if there is follow-up needed from the EL meeting held April 1

10 min

All

SCP record deletion findings

10 min

All

• UCSB and UCD don’t have SCP serials in their primo test instances; UCI, UCSC and UCR do. Ex Libris is recommending that those Primo VE campuses delete those records.

• UCSB is running delete jobs on test DB for SCP. So far has taken 4 days. This is going to be a long job.

• UCD deleted 1.2 million portfolios and associated bib records; but there are loads left, and it deleted some non-SCP portfolios. Took 6/7 days.

Marcive discussion

10 min

All

• Later discussion –

  • What are the different types of scenarios we have (Print AND electronic? Print only? Electronic which is broader than UCSD? Local focuses on MARCIVE profile that’s not covered by UCSD.

• UCSD has been processing lots of MARCIVE updates since the test load (mostly URL updates)

Update on Day 1 post migration data cleanup document

Breakout group discussion

30 min

All

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14pPaqCwoiQcdG2ZbimdjZQ8IdRhGmBz2YyHoviOUUeM/edit?usp=sharing

• Breakouts!

• Group 2 recommendations:

  • Technical migration – will be done/prioritized at the local level

  • Identifying corrupt characters

    • 1) ILSDC should have a normalization rule ready to go/share in the NZ that will do the updates that can be done in bulk (editing the double-daggers, etc)

    • 2) Existing Alma campuses should run the corrupt characters Indication rules on their test DB and production, in order to identify/flag any potential problems before that can be cleaned up in our existing systems now;

    • 3) we should be prepared to run either ONE indication rule and then split up (by campus?) or 10 indication rules (e.g. HAS 035 (cui) AND HAS [corrupt characters]). How this cleanup work will be divided remains to be determined.