2021-08-17 Meeting notes

Updates (please add in advance)

10 mins

Liz:

• UCSD is waiting to get SAML set up before we start using our sandboxes, hoping for this week

• Requested a report from Gem for the UCLA 035 question. Will send around today/tomorrow

Hermine:

• Involvement in NERS (New Enhancements Request System) - Have we discussed as a consortium how we will participate in NERS? Anyone can submit ideas to Idea Exchange; participation in NERS seems to be more structured.

• Cataloging things that are already indexed in CDI - should we have a policy about it?

• I keep adding examples to our NZ/IZ syncing SF ticket (some records have gone days after updating NZ; IZ still as before); waiting for info from ExL.

• Going to start a group to develop bound-with procedures. Try this out? https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/Physical_Resource_Management/070_Configuring_Resource_Management/009Configuring_Related_Records_for_Physical_Inventory#MARC_21 Any considerations?

• What are you all doing with 956s? We’re considering deleting them, but might want to keep them around just in case… probably don’t want to maintain them.

•  

UCB: The long email I sent yesterday about – one of the two 035$a fields within an NZ bib being the original UCLA Voyager bib number that they had not removed. The systemwide ILS DC group has noted/discussed the problem since this will need to be investigated further and resolved first at the NZ level, then further cleanup after that.

In Alma, go to Help (upper right corner) > Premium Sandbox. SAML is one of the options.

Bound-withs: Harmonize the procedures eventually?

Some campuses continue with their practices (e.g., dummy records) for now.

Coordinated enhancement requests: Liz will ask the SILS chairs for their thoughts.

Liz will send out (post go-live) Identifying bound-with bibliographic records in the UC NZ

for fist of five vote.

HathiTrust/publishing profiles for digitization

10 mins

Draft

One point of contention: capital letters are not valid MARC subfields

Campuses get feedback from their contacts on the updated draft, by Monday, 8/23

Language for RLF holdings for analytics

(Standard notes to the records instructing users to also search on the journal/series)

10 mins

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

UCLA’s example

https://search.library.ucla.edu/permalink/01UCS_LAL/1763hao/alma998283813606533

Find examples of the text campuses use , add them to Google doc, and we find one that work for all campuses

Seek feedback from Discovery FG as well.

856 removal

20

CDL is going to start removing 856 40 fields this week.

Re: 856 41: at least one campus has requested that we keep some 41s for TOC and other data. Do we feel that this data is useful system-wide?

9/1~ start to pull 856 41s.
9/1: campuses that are ok with all 41s being removed

9/15: remaining campuses

Systemwide preference on what to do with 41s?

UCSB has links to audio files that could be valuable to all campuses

See if there is a way to identify any 41s campuses would like to keep

Post-mortem

10 mins

Document

Feel free to add responses

Next meeting (8/31)

UC-wide study hall

Giving a prompt/specific topic for each session may help encourage more interaction

Confluence page for the UC-wide study hall with a link to google doc for questions