| 1 | Updates (please add in advance) | | 10 mins | | UCLA: Process for cataloging records with a different OCLC number than the record loaded into the NZ is still causing a lot of headaches. (If you mark the record for deletion first and then copy to catalog, the deletion note comes along. Then when you share with network and you match on a record, the option to link disappears once you view it and you need to go back to click “Link.” People are struggling and I’ve had to clean up a lot of dupes. Answer from ExL on 880s in merge rules was essentially “nope.” They advise working in Alma and exporting to OCLC. Also “the merge rules sometimes result in duplicate fields because of how the rules are interacting with the individual records before they merge. The best way of resolving it is usually to allow the merge to complete and use norm rules to clean up the duplicates.” Had first meeting of bound-with group. Looking at “host bibliographic” method or linking first title in volume to subsequent titles. Need to start thinking about publishing--to OCLC (for SRLF holdings), Hathi, etc.
SCP: SCP 930 field is currently not configured to be searchable in UC Library Search at campus level. CDL has informed DFG. the DFG co-chair will set up meeting with AEFG and RMFG chairs for input before making their recommendation as whether to make it publicly searchable field. By Alma default setting, electronic collection level bib records are suppressed. Based on several requests and SCP-AC discussion, SCP see needs to continue to provide collection level bib records. CDL ERT also noticed that most of CZ collection inventories for packages don’t have collection level linking. As a result, no access linking out from collection level bib records when making them available. CDL ERT will bring links from SCP records and manually add to collection inventory records.
UCB: I. Still working on a couple of documents: Marking Alma records for deletion NRLF Shared Print conversion workflow
II. CONSER conversation ongoing: CONSER members that use Alma, are working on the CZ CONSER record conversion. However, it will take time to convert all existing one record approach records. https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Content_Corner/Knowledge_Articles/Community_Zone_CONSER_record_conversions_(January_-_March_2020) https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Content_Corner/Knowledge_Articles/Community_Zone_Serial_Records_Enrichment It is best to have a systemwide best practice for the campuses" IT and catalogers. How do catalogers deal with the one record approach records in CZ?
| | | | | |
| 2 | Update on boundwiths | | | | While the IZ delete job can find related records just fine, the NZ one doesn’t, regardless of which model is used to create the boundwith. We do need to add some kind of note if we don’t want the records to get deleted during batch jobs at CDL. | | | | | |
| 4 | 856 41 removal | | | | 9/10 campuses are ok with removing all remaining 856 41s. Liz will send the list to Gem this week. For UCSB: any 856 fields with “restricted” will be removed and the rest will stay until we have a better solution for things like the cylinder collections, etc. UCB: If we know for sure that all 856 41s were converted to portfolios, then it seems safe to delete the 856. | | | | | |