Harmonization of OCLC symbol usage on RLF titles
See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups
Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided
Status | decided |
|---|---|
Description | Determine if there should be harmonization around what holdings symbol(s) should be used in OCLC on last item of persistent (circulating) titles going to SLF-N or SLF-S. |
Decision summary | We will not harmonize at this time. |
Owning group | |
Approver | RM |
Consulted | SLF-N, SLF-S, RS |
Informed | SLF-N, SLF-S, RS, OT |
Decision-making process | Discussion with RM and with stakeholders. Fist of five with both stakeholders and approval of decision by RM. |
Priority | High |
Target decision date | July 17, 2025 |
Date decided | July 17, 2025 |
Recommendation
Impact
Stakeholder group | Impact |
|---|---|
SLF-N/UCB | International lending of UCB-owned SLF-N holdings currently go through ILL via UCB, this would not be possible if UCB holdings are removed at this time. |
SLF-S | No major impact. |
Resource Sharing | Lending requests at owning campuses would decrease (UCI, UCB and UCLA only); ILL setup for workflow may need to be revised at campuses. |
Reasoning
Background
In April 2025, in preparation for the UC migration to Tipasa, a proposal to determine if harmonization of UC practice on OCLC symbol usage for last copies of general collection campus resources being sent to the RLFs should be endorsed. It was determined that this would best be owned by RM-CMOS in consultation with Resource Sharing and SLF stakeholders.
Currently, only UCLA, UCI and UCB retain their campus symbols on last copies sent to an RLF (symbols ZAP and/or ZAS).
Options Considered [remove if not needed]
| Option 1 | Option 2 |
|---|---|---|
Description | For persistent deposits: set SLF holdings symbol; remove campus holdings symbol unless campus retains an additional non-SLF copy. For non-persistent deposits: do not set SLF holdings symbol; retain campus holdings symbol. | Do not harmonize on owning campus holding. For persistent deposits: set SLF holdings symbol; campus may remove campus holdings symbol or retain holdings symbol. For non-persistent deposits: do not set SLF holdings symbol; retain campus holdings symbol. |
Pros |
| Continue to allow UCB to ILL internationally. |
Cons | When lending policies differ between the SLFs and the owning campus, lending by the owning campus may allow for fewer lending restrictions. |
|
Dependencies
A central lending policy for SLF persistent deposits would need to be in place prior to a decision to harmonize on setting/removing campus holdings symbols. This is out of scope for RM.
Questions to consider
What are the needs and use cases for resource sharing and SLF workflows?
Separate issue or related issue? If a campus library deletes the Alma record do you also delete campus OCLC holdings?
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
RM subgroup (C. Busselen, A. Baron, T. Lampron, H. Vermeij) meet with stakeholders to discuss existing use cases and pros/cons | June 6, 2025 | Done | |
|
|
|
|