(Go-live) RLF Bibliographic, holdings, and item records in campus IZs

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

General collections:

• Bibliographic records can be migrated but there is no mandate

• Holdings records should be suppressed post-migration

  • For campuses migrating monograph analytics (i.e. the RLF only has bibliographic records for a journal and the campus has bibliographic records for each title):

    • Post-migration campuses will be asked to add notes to these records instructing users to also search on the journal/series

• Item record must be placed in a location governed by a fulfillment unit that prevents loan, digitization, and physical copy requests of the items.

• Location codes should indicate that the the item is at an RLF and ideally be coded only as either “NRLF” or “SRLF”

Special Collections:

• Bibliographic records can be migrated but there is no mandate

• Holdings records should not be suppressed

• Item record must be placed in a location governed by a fulfillment unit that prevents loan, digitization, and physical copy requests of the items.

• Location codes should indicate that the the item is at an RLF and ideally be coded only as either “NRLF” or “SRLF”

Considerations:

Campuses should consider whether to remove holdings in OCLC for RLF bibliographic records not migrated to Alma. Both SRLF and NRLF set their own OCLC holdings for deposited items.

Reasoning

This decision combines recommendations from two Test Load decisions listed below in “background.” Holdings and item records for general collections resources should comply with the recommendation from Fulfillment in full while a small exception is made for Special Collections holdings records. In both cases, bibliographic records can be migrated.

If items are placed in a location NOT governed by a fulfillment unit that prevents loan, digitization, and physical copy requests of the items, users will be able to make “phantom requests” that result in items not being delivered and cause significant frustration for them and delays and excess work for staff.

Special Collections items require that holdings be visible in order to show the Aeon link in Primo. Since these requests need to be mediated by campus staff, the Aeon link is critical to fulfilling these.

For analytics, campuses often create monograph bibliographic records for journals or series there the subject is of particular interest to their users and where more granular subject headings and/or title searches are valuable. That bibliographic information is helpful for users but does not require that the attached holdings or items be visible. In fact, in many cases where one campus has an analytic record for an item deposited at an RLF, another UC has the item in place on their shevles so that it can be easily loaned. Post-migration some additional language should be proposed to encourage users to search on both the individual titles and on series information to find all available copies. Since the “analytics” question is not unique to RLF deposits there is no reason to limit the bibliographic records coming into the system but the holdings and items must comply with the needs of the Automated Fulfillment Network.

Action log:

Background

(Test load) Local RLF bibliographic record migration

(Test-Go-Live) Records Retained for Items Deposited in RLFs

Dependencies

The PPC decision will need to incorporate input from the RLF Task Force

Questions to consider

Impacts on fulfillment: (Test-Go-Live) Records Retained for Items Deposited in RLFs

Action Log