2020-06-11 Meeting notes

Ex Libris discussion / 3rd party integrations as critical priority

Danelle

Still not sure will be addressed: how to deal with local subject headings by campus, making it a transparent discovery process

Special Collections cataloging CKG also interested in this

Vanguard is an opportunity to have a toolbox to play around with options for the next few months; we are still at an early stage

Digital Collection group is looking at environmental scan of digital collections

Aeon piece seems distinct as a key priority for 3rd party integrations. Should we parse this out? Aeon, ASpace, ArchiveIt, etc

Review of CFP https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/groups/files/UCLibraries_SILS-RFP_20190528.pdf

Shared: digital collections group environmental scan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bZIVRfipJd2kKWCsGSJXnQx_EuHNXpOiCTcWBbQb5Hg/edit#gid=0

Question: what about availability of donor data? Especially confidential information around philanthropy or purchases?

We can move our questions forward, talk to our own campuses

We should separate Aeon out as a separate priority for integration; recommendation that each platform/system listed as a separate item

@Danelle Moon (Unlicensed) to schedule conversations with specific campuses about local subject headings

@Jasmine Jones (Unlicensed) also bringing local headings questions to SCC CKG

@Audra Eagle Yun (Unlicensed) to report at next meeting of findings of digital collections group

@Danelle Moon (Unlicensed) to separate systems in priority list

Local fields

Kate

Issue brought up by Resource Management Functional Group with impact on Special Collections materials: institution-specific local notes will appear in Network Zone, some local notes will be lost.

• The first copy of any record from any campus becomes the Network Zone copy. After that every campus has its data matched against that NZ copy and when there’s a match, any fields not in the prescribed local fields (09X, 59X, 69X, 9XX) are lost in both the NZ and Institutional Zone records. With the exception of these fields, Alma can’t strip fields out of the NZ copy without also taking them out of the IZ copy.

• The Resource Management FG is looking into a partial solution: Ex Libris can map some local fields (506, 541, 561, 563) from the bib records to the holdings records. (The NZ won't have "master" holdings records that overwrite the various IZ records.)

• However, this doesn’t address 501 and 7xx in the bib record. This means that the local data in these fields for the first-in record will appear in every campus' IZ records. Any data in these fields will be lost for the other campuses.

• See decision page on this issue: Non-9XX local data for the Vanguard

Jasmine proposed the following recommendations to the chair of the UCLA SILS-LA RMFG regarding the 7XX:

• Mapping 7XX to the holding record.

  • CM team from LSC and the Clark Library explored the possibility of retaining the 7XX in the holding record, too. However, this would only be worth it if data in the holdings records are searchable in the catalog and if it is a generic holdings record, rather than copy specific, which would require much more time and be more labor-intensive to map and prepare.

  • We talked about later moving it back to the bib record, but are mindful of approaches where there may be too many steps involved.

• Moving the 7XX into the 59X (and coding with specific labels and identifying repositories (subfield 5?)), then moving it back to the 7XX post-migration to campus’s IZ records.

• Also discussed running multiple different approaches for these local fields against defined batches of records in the Vanguard to ascertain the feasibility and consequences of these actions.

• We still have questions about local data in other fields, like the 246, and subfield 5.

  • Our local RMFG doesn’t know if there’s a way to differentiate between the fields with $5 we’ve added to the WorldCat master record; and the fields with $5 that we’ve only added locally. If we are supposed to migrate all local information into local fields (e.g. the 590 instead of the 500), we may need to move everything with a $5. But it’s a question I want to bring up with the larger RMFG.

Ready to experiment in Vanguard to see what works

UCLA concerned about their records needs unduly influencing all other campus needs

We should separate local notes discussion and index fields

@Danelle Moon (Unlicensed) to separate out local fields related topics in priority list for clarity

Decision making guide

Kate

https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PMOL/pages/468222144

Concerns/Questions

• Has anyone heard any conversations about how acquisitions data will be shared (or not) across the system? Will this data be purely relegated to the IZ? Jasmine is concerned about privacy of donor/purchaser information.

Need to ask acquisitions group about donor/financial data

@Danelle Moon (Unlicensed) to ask acquisitions group