...
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Local group takeaways | Actions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Updates (please add in advance) | 10 mins | Liz:
Belinda (UCSC)
Jean:
So Berkeley is considering switching from our Millennium traditional practice to MARC 21 holdings format (NISO standard). Does this need Systemwide's approval? Can individual campuses make our own decisions? 2. UCB governance people (not just the catalogers) talked about noticeably slow response times, but said they don’t want to hurt our relationship with ExL, so are treading diplomatically through it with them. Our SLA (service level agreement) seems to be involved. 3.Having received a couple of notifications from other campuses about errors in UCB records: Do we want some sort of list of campus contacts for record issues? And, when there are multiple holdings, which campus will correct the issue? But such a list would require upkeep. And any problem reports should include a clear and obvious indication of priority. For instance, a multi-match problem would definitely impede another campus from proceeding with their work, whereas many or most other errors could be fixed ... sometime. Many of these reports would be coming to my department, and we do not have the capacity to resolve all possible problems from all corners of UC, a situation unlikely to change anytime soon.
CDL/SCP:
UCLA (Hermine)
| In response to Jean’s question about changing UCB’s holdings records format to follow NISO standards, Liz noted that campuses can and have chosen to follow their own standards for holdings records without need for approval from systemwide. UCSD will also be moving towards recording their holdings records according to NISO level 3. With regard to records error reporting when it affects another or multiple other campuses, it was suggested that we use the RMFG rep as the first point of contact unless there is already a known protocol or contact list (such as for Special Collections) To assist in error reporting, we also discussed the need for a list of campus MMS ID suffixes. For now, everyone should add their campus suffix on the RMFG landing page after their name and campus. | Create list of campus MMS ID suffixes | |||||
2 | Authority reports/cleanup | Review current reports, how to handle these? | Reviewed some of the Preferred term correction reports. Will need testing to see how and if we can make use of these reports. Would WC daily updates be sufficient instead of running these. If not, can they be filtered to be more useful for catalogers? | |||||||
3 | MARCIVE | Gem ran some new normalization on the records in the sandbox including: Adding the OA 506 Adding the SCP 930 How do these look now? | To find these, search All titles - 908 - marcive - NZ | All campuses should take a look by our next meeting | ||||||
4 | Bound-withs/related records | Adding campus names Ready to run in production? UCB: Still in the middle of deciding about 910s, and wanting to hear all news from Systemwide. | After further testing and discussions the last few weeks, we will add campus name to the 910s. There will be a norm rule for each campus. | Liz will update the decision pages for further campus review | ||||||
5 | $x and Primo’s over zealous linking | See TJ’s email from Friday | Will see if Discovery has any ideas for a solution | |||||||
6 | 856 42s | Future maintenance of 856 42s is still a concern, so we are going to test allowing them in for a month or so and then review the results. | Tweak rules in Study Hall tomorrow | |||||||
7 | Next meeting (10/24) | MVP check-in WorldCat updates |
...