RMFG Non-9XX local data for the Vanguard

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendations

• Campuses who have already moved fields can keep their changes for the Vanguard if they like

• For campuses who have not yet moved data or who have moved data but want to experiment with different options:

  • Option 1: If a campus doesn’t have the capacity to move local data to specific fields: Move all local 5xx to 590, all local 6xx to 690, all local 7xx to 97X

  • Option 2: If a campus has the capacity to move local data to specific fields, they can map their data however they like (there is a sample mapping for consideration here)

  • Option 3: Campuses interested in experimenting with holdings data can copy/move 541, 561-563, 583 data to those same fields in holdings records

  • Option 4: Campuses can leave existing fields as-is and test out what gets lost during migration or/and how it affects search and/display of other campuses” Primo VE

  • Option 5: Campuses can experiment with any combination of the above

• Campuses will experiment with the Vanguard data and ask for SC CKG and Discovery FG input for recommendations for go-live

• Campuses will record where they’ve relocated fields so that we can have an idea of scope for potential harmonization for go-live

Vanguard assessment:

In consultation with the SC CKG and Discovery FG, Resource Management FG will examine different methods of handling this local data and the impacts on user experience and staff needs in order to make harmonization recommendations for go-live.

Reasoning:

There are a multitude of options for handling this kind of data and campuses expressed interest in being able to try out whichever ones they were interested in during Vanguard phase. This data is extremely relevant to Special Collections and a one-size-fits-all approach would prohibit campuses from experimenting and comparing notes. In addition, different Vanguard campuses have different capacities for implementing each option. Some campuses already have holdings records and may want to try that out while others do not. This allows each campus to migrate their data in way that makes sense for them and to involve their Special Collections groups as needed on a relatively short time frame.

856 fields will be addressed on another decision page since they have some special considerations.

Background

Local notes in Alma are only allowed in 9XX, 09X, 59X, 69X. Campuses are encouraged to move any local notes into these fields to avoid losing them during Network Zone Migration. Fields like 541 are retained in Alma so long as they belong to the first record into the NZ, any fields in matching records added after the first one will be lost unless they are marked as local.

ExLibris documentation: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/070Alma-Summon_Integration/050Display_Configuration/030Managing_Display_and_Local_Fields

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/025Display_Configuration/040Configuring_Local_Display_and_Search_Fields_for_Primo_VE

From Phase 3:

An area of concern is to what level we need to resolve data issues across the consortia (campuses, CDL, RLFs). Will consortia members have ability to maintain some records (bibliographic, authority, etc.) in the network zone, and others in their own institutional zone? What if there are varying treatment decisions for different locations/campuses? Where will SCP records live? How will campuses maintain their local records of overlapping contents? [this somewhat duplicates bib record management]

See other decision pages: RMFG Bibliographic records 9xx fields mapping for Vanguard SCP, SFX, and related resource records handling for eResource records in NZ - VANGUARD

Questions to consider

Do we need to harmonize 59x and 69x fields across campuses?

Some campuses have started moving data already, is it worth releasing new recommendations or would a post-migration project be more worthwhile?

856 fields are likely also “local” when they are not part of the OCLC master. Campuses may want to copy their data to another field in case it’s lost during migration. 9XX or possibly holdings 856 for campuses with holdings records

Action Log