Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Current »

Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED

Status

DECIDED

Description

Determine how and when RLF records are loaded into the NZ and what campuses should do with their local data

Decision

See below

Owning group

Resource Management FG

Approver

PPC

Stakeholders

R = Resource Management IG
A = ILSDC
C = Special Collections CKG, Fulfillment
I = PPC, ILSDC

Decision-making process

Due date

Recommendations

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 test 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)

See other decision pages: Order of Network Zone Record Loading - Vanguard Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ Vanguard local RLF bibliographic record migration

Questions to consider

Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

Consulting group feedback

10/14/20

Done

RMFG vote

10/20/20

Done

PPC for approval

10/23/20

Done

Routed to ILSDC (Liz)

10/26/20

Done

  • No labels