RMFG Local 856 bibliographic data for the Vanguard

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendations

• If they are concerned about losing data, campuses should consider copying 856 fields into a 9XX field of their choosing (between 950 and 999) or into the 856 of a holdings record

  • It is unclear whether copying data into a holding record has any more value than leaving it in the bib. UCLA may be able to test a small set of records but there is no obligation to choose a bib or holding field.

• SCP will copy their 856 data into a 946 field

• Campuses should document where 856 data has been copied

• Generally, campuses should not remove their data from existing 856 fields prior to submitting files to Ex Libris

Reasoning:

Since there is some uncertainty around how 856 data will migrate and what utility there will be for having that data available, campuses can decide for themselves what their preferences are. Some campuses may not have any need for that data at all while others may have vital information in fields that will not necessarily translate cleanly into portfolios during p2e. The Vanguard should be used to test various methods and provide insights into future harmonization and best practices for go-live.

Vanguard assessment:

Campuses will examine their record to determine how/whether their 856 data migrated and (if applicable) whether copying that data into a 9XX field is useful for future reference or other uses.

RM FG will consult with the Discovery FG to test the statement below that “existing 856 fields will not populate into Primo” since current experience with Primo at some Alma campuses varies. In addition whether those fields wind up in Primo will affect specific 856 data like finding aid links, etc.

Background

It is unclear exactly what 856 data will be retained in bibs during migration and certain subfields will not map into portfolios during the P2E process. Coverage data from $3 cannot be used to populate coverage data in portfolios

From ExLibris CDL Q&A 6/16/2020: migrated bibs will retain 856 fields so long as the bib is not overlaid. This also means it is likely that IZ bibs will lose their 856 fields if the bib matches an NZ record. 856 fields also do not populate Primo, all links com from the portfolios created during migration.

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

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 RMFG Non-9XX local data for the Vanguard

Questions to consider

Some campuses have started moving data already, is it worth creating 1 prescribed field?

Is there any advantage to using a 9XX in a bib over a holdings field

Action Log