Will SRLF and NRLF records load with campuses or separately?

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Status	decided
Description	Decide if SRLF and NRLF records will be loaded as part of the UCLA and UCB loads or if they will be loaded separately.
Decision	NRLF and SRLF data will load in the same data extract as UCB and UCLA data.
Owning group	Implementation Coordinators (SILS-IC-L@listserv.ucop.edu)
Approver
Stakeholders	R/A = Implementation Coordinator Group C = ILSDC, UCLA, UCB I = SILS Phase 4 Cohorts
Decision-making process	Implementation Coordinator Group is responsible for decision making with consultation from Ex-Libris, ILSDC, UCLA, UCB, and Existing Alma-based UC Libraries.
Priority
Due date	Jun 26, 2020

Recommendation

The Network Zone is populated by each IZ as a whole, not in parts and at this time Ex Libris plans to load the entire UCLA and UCB data extracts as a whole, and NOT to load SRLF and NRLF as separate data extracts. Why? Because that's the default path for IZ to NZ migrations, and because the difficulty of pulling out the RLF data at each campus was too much to do at this time.

Background

SRLF and UCLA will be located in the same Institution Zone, but it is possible that there could either be two separate loads to create that IZ or a single, combined, load. Given the “first-in” nature of the Alma Network Zone record creation from imported records, this can affect recommendations for deduplication of OCLC numbers for the records in question.

As of May 2020, NRLF and SRLF will be loaded with the UCB and UCLA IZs respesctively.

Dependencies

Issues to consider

Will the SRLF and NRLF records be loaded as part of the overall UCLA and UCB loads or will they need to be loaded separately?

If the RLF records are loaded in separate loads and prior to the rest of that campus load, then duplication of OCLC numbers in the RLFs could be prioritized for cleanup with less need to prioritize deduplication for all of UCLA and UCB records.

Note: One reading of the documentation is that the matches are within the institution; it’s not clear to me from the documentation that going in different files for the same institution will negate this problem (https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Implementation_and_Migration/Migration_Guides_and_Tutorials/010Alma_Migration_Considerations_for_Consortia#Multilple_Matches_Within_the_Same_Institution). Do the source files have to have deduped OCLC numbers in t

Note from Data Cleanup: the issues with RLF records and duplicate OCLC numbers has less to do with whether the bib record is the master record or not, it has to do with the fact that if it is the second record with that OCLC number to load from within the UCLA or UCB loads, the RLF holdings will not be linked to the NZ record and will only be int the UCLA or UCB IZ.

If the RLF records duplicate other bibliographic records in the same record load and they do not load first, then the RLF holdings will not be linked to the NZ record.

How will this affect cleanup if the RLF records are loaded along with UCLA and UCB records? Is there any benefit there?

UCB: Not even sure we can do this - cleanly enough to do what you’re talking about. May be technically infeasible.

Also: UCB duplicate record is often a cleaner record than the NRLF record. If the NRLF record goes in first, does that become the “master record”?

Can ExL load different pieces of the same institution in different loads? What are NZ implications with different loads within same IZ? Can ExL do the extracting if we gave them one whole load?
How is Millennium involved in answering this question?

Question to ExL: They apparently offered the CSUs to load OCLC master records by OCLC number from OCLC - can they do that for us? (SEE: Order of Master Records Decision) Basecamp discussion here: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/messages/2656132957#__recording_2660422757

Action Log

Action/Point Person	Expected Completion Date	Notes	Status

Action/Point Person	Expected Completion Date	Notes	Status