Electronic Resources Preparation (including P2E) for the Test Load

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

AEFG recommends the following courses of action related to electronic resources for the test load. Note that these are additive to previous recommendations regarding P2E (for example, splitting print and electronic orders onto separate bib records so that the electronic version can be included in P2E and the print version would migrate as print).

COVERAGE: AEFG is investigating how coverage is interpreted from the ILS and SFX for display purposes, and whether any pre-emptive actions would help reduce confusion in the discovery layer. Based on migration results in the Vanguard, coverage from the ILS does not map into a coverage field in the e-portfolio record, and misleading article-level results occur in Primo based on the CZ, NZ, and IZ. Portfolios created from the ILS via P2E will have no data in the coverage fields, which Primo appears to be interpreting as “all years.” The recommendation is intended to avoid false article delivery.

• FOR TEST LOAD EXTRACT: e-only records that have duplicate resource records in SFX, provided there are no attached records (order, etc.) could be eliminated from the ILS extract. This would be appropriate for content that is adequately represented by the SFX resource record (i.e., it is not a situation in which the bib record provides a more robust description for discovery purposes). Coverage would be represented in the SFX-migrated record.

• POST-MIGRATION (for test load or go-live): another option is to deactivate portfolios from the ILS/P2E process that migrate without coverage data as the first step of a clean-up project. These could be identified from an Advanced Search on Electronic Portfolio with parameters of URL keywords or public note (migrated data from either 856 subfield 3 or subfield z depending on migration decision). A set created from this could form the basis of a job to update the activation status of the portfolios, with subsequent reconciliation of the coverage data.

P2E: In addition to the documentation in the Background section below, AEFG notes that campuses may make different decisions regarding which parameters to use to create the P2E file. P2E will create electronic inventory based on the records provided. If a bib record includes 856 data that points to electronic content, but should not end up being managed as electronic inventory in Alma, it should not be included in the P2E file. AEFG highly encourages a close review of Ex Libris’s page on Physical to Electronic (P2E) Processing .

• Vanguard sites encountered creation of electronic inventory for non-electronic content that had 856 fields with indicators other than 40 and 41 (for example the 42 indicator for related resource). This category should not be included in P2E if it is the only occurrence of the 856 in the bib record. If it is in an electronic record with 856 fields that should be creating e-inventory, this 856 42 data should be remapped before migration.

• P2E Session: AEFG is coordinating a SILS informational discussion session regarding P2E for preparation of test load data. This will provide an opportunity for cross-cohort discussion, and including campus representatives involved in electronic resources management, and is planned for November 16, 2020.

Background

Decision Pages for Vanguard Data Migration

• P2E Recommendations for Vanguard (AEFG)

• SCP, SFX, and related resource records handling for eResource records in NZ - VANGUARD (CDL in NZ Group)

• (Vanguard and Test Load) Preparation of Campus SCP Data (PPC)

Related Decision Pages based on Vanguard Testing

• (Test load) Local 856 bibliographic data (RMFG)

Questions to consider

• General issues: feasibility of clean-up before migrating data vs. ability to identify and rearrange portfolios and collections post-migration. AEFG Response: This should be assessed at each site regarding capacity, the timeline, the functionality of the “migrating-from” system, etc.

• “Premature” clean-up before seeing how the NZ and IZ data interacts (e.g., campuses already on Alma will be contending with new relationships in the NZ). AEFG Response: This can be explored further during the Test Load in coordination with Discovery FG, etc.

• What are the trade-offs in a migration decision between bringing in as much data as possible and minimizing confusion in the discovery layer? For example, if there is duplication between ILS/P2E and SFX data in order to migrate and convert the order records, is it possible to “deactivate” portfolios to not have them display as duplicates in Primo? AEFG Response: The recommendations serve to address this somewhat, acknowledging that there will be post-migration clean-up in any case. These projects can be prioritized according to impact on the user experience.

Action Log