2021-09-14 Meeting notes

Updates (please add in advance)

10 mins

UCLA:

• Process for cataloging records with a different OCLC number than the record loaded into the NZ is still causing a lot of headaches. (If you mark the record for deletion first and then copy to catalog, the deletion note comes along. Then when you share with network and you match on a record, the option to link disappears once you view it and you need to go back to click “Link.” People are struggling and I’ve had to clean up a lot of dupes.

• Answer from ExL on 880s in merge rules was essentially “nope.” They advise working in Alma and exporting to OCLC. Also “the merge rules sometimes result in duplicate fields because of how the rules are interacting with the individual records before they merge. The best way of resolving it is usually to allow the merge to complete and use norm rules to clean up the duplicates.”

• Had first meeting of bound-with group. Looking at “host bibliographic” method or linking first title in volume to subsequent titles.

• Need to start thinking about publishing--to OCLC (for SRLF holdings), Hathi, etc.

SCP:

• SCP 930 field is currently not configured to be searchable in UC Library Search at campus level. CDL has informed DFG. the DFG co-chair will set up meeting with AEFG and RMFG chairs for input before making their recommendation as whether to make it publicly searchable field.

• By Alma default setting, electronic collection level bib records are suppressed. Based on several requests and SCP-AC discussion, SCP see needs to continue to provide collection level bib records. CDL ERT also noticed that most of CZ collection inventories for packages don’t have collection level linking. As a result, no access linking out from collection level bib records when making them available. CDL ERT will bring links from SCP records and manually add to collection inventory records.

UCB:

I. Still working on a couple of documents:

1. Marking Alma records for deletion

2. NRLF Shared Print conversion workflow

II. CONSER conversation ongoing:

CONSER members that use Alma, are working on the CZ CONSER record conversion. However, it will take time to convert all existing one record approach records.

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Content_Corner/Knowledge_Articles/Community_Zone_CONSER_record_conversions_(January_-_March_2020)

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Content_Corner/Knowledge_Articles/Community_Zone_Serial_Records_Enrichment

 It is best to have a systemwide best practice for the campuses" IT and catalogers. How do catalogers deal with the one record approach records in CZ? 

UCSD: Finally getting around to setting up Gobi, it’s been a bit daunting.

Locally, still talking about when to set holdings in OCLC. (= Talking about removing LHRs [local holdings records]... IT also sets holdings (as well as the catalogers)... this has an impact on ILL.

UCI:

considered and decided against unsuppressing local SCP database records as a temporary fix until SCP records are available. We are interested in knowing if other campuses (Already Almas?) plan on doing this as it does cause problems for display. UCI has consciously decided not to limit search scope to “only available at UCI” because it is better for undergrads to see all options and use ILL.

I. CDL:

1. CDL is working on the following communication questions: What is the best communication channel for CDL? How can they best help people? What are the issues? 

2. The following page on the PPC [Policy & Practice Coordinators] Confluence site shows, in priority order, CDL clean-up project spreadsheets: NZ CDL data cleanup project

Remarks: 

1. Item #1: “Too many participants” is quite helpful.

2. There are hopes that CDL acquisitions will start going a lot faster.

II. UCI:

Editorial comment about undergrads (et al.) seeing all options -- No one [= patrons] is actually going to click on “expand record”!)

1. Further, about UCI’s decision not to unsuppress records:

n.b. The above UCI decision arose from the following issue that TJ Kao emailed about this past Tue., Sept. 14 about when campuses' Primos are displaying e-resources that they do not own:

from TJ Kao --

“Hi all,

I am sharing a message from Ping at ExL. Her message was a response to a Salesforce ticket Gem submitted a while ago. Gem was asking ExL to clarify why ER bib shows up in non-owning institution's Primo. The solution is to adjust the search scope of UCS.  The reason why I share this message is that UCD's decision of unsuppressing local SCP bib has caused concerns for some campuses. I believe Ping's proposed solution will make sure these bib don't show up in non-UCD's Primo.

The message: 

Dear SILS System Operations,

A new comment was received for case #00991435:

Case Title: Why is Electronic Resource showing in non-owning IZs

Hello,

UC Berkeley has search scope "DN_and_CI" for "Articles, Books and More". This default scope searches everything in the Discovery Network (NZ and all IZ members) and CDI, and returns results regardless of availability of physical and electronic resources of IZ members.

If you want a search scope to return results of electronic resources in IZ and NZ that are available only for your institution, please use the scope UCSDiscoveryNetwork, or UCSDiscoveryNetwork_LBL (for LBL campus/view) or UCSDiscoveryNetwork_UCB (campus/view)

 Please let me know if you have further questions about this case.

 Best, Ping

Status:Tier 1 Analysis

Priority:Normal

Description:

Hi,

 UC Berkeley noticed there's an electronic resource record showing up in their Primo VE that they don't own. It's Union Time: Fighting for Workers' Rights (MMS ID 9981344944003126) which is a Kanopy resource at UC Davis. We looked and it's not in the Network Zone. Why is it showing in Berkeley's Primo VE? We understand that local physical resources will display in non-owning IZs. However, our understanding is that local electronic resources in one IZ should not be shared with non-owning IZs. Is this correct? If so, why is this record displaying?

To complicate things, I noticed it is displaying with access for UC Irvine and UC San Diego. Is this because of CDI or something else?

UC Berkeley - No Access - https://search.library.berkeley.edu/permalink/01UCS_BER/1thfj9n/alma9981344944003126

UC Davis - Owning Library - https://search.library.ucdavis.edu/permalink/01UCD_INST/9fle3i/alma9981344944003126

UC Irvine - Access - https://uci.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CDL_IRV_INST/12i4laf/alma9981344944003126

UC Merced - No Access - https://ucmerced.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01UCS_UCM/oirpmg/alma9981344944003126

UC Riverside - No Access - https://search.library.ucr.edu/permalink/01CDL_RIV_INST/14qc2ti/alma9981344944003126

UC San Diego - Access - https://search-library.ucsd.edu/permalink/01UCS_SDI/ld412s/alma9981344944003126

UC San Francisco - No Access - https://search.library.ucsf.edu/permalink/01UCS_SAF/88i771/alma9981344944003126

UC Santa Barbara - No Access - https://search.library.ucsb.edu/permalink/01UCSB_INST/1aqck9j/alma9981344944003126

UC Santa Cruz - No Access - https://ucsc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CDL_SCR_INST/1jiojor/alma9981344944003126

2.

• UCR just unsuppressed the one-offs needed for course reserves. UCSD might do that too.

• UCD did try some workarounds, but came to the conclusion that it was better not to try to work around it.

Update on boundwiths

While the IZ delete job can find related records just fine, the NZ one doesn’t, regardless of which model is used to create the boundwith.

The two models: 

1. 773s: a “real” bibliographic record is used to hold the inventory for the bound-with and 773 fields are added for the other related titles.

2. 774s: a record exists in a campus IZ solely for the purpose of holding inventory, during migration these are given a generic title that starts with “host bibliographic record for…” The records include 774 fields for “related” bibs.

We do need to add some kind of note if we don’t want the records to get deleted during batch jobs at CDL.

~ Maybe create a 910 note. We will use the Wed., Sept. 15 RMFG Study Hall to test it. .. If we can get a set into the NZ, Gem will run it.

~ (Liz tried a kind of loop with a new set and a 774 but it wasn’t great) 

We cannot prescribe one model right now. We’ve got too much invested in our two different ways. So/but, rest assured, campuses won’t lose their own model.

WorldCat updates

Do we still want to start these for non-serials on 9/20?

From Hermine: We’re not ready yet! Outstanding issues for UCLA:

• 035 cleanup

• Gathering sets of records to protect from overlay

• Figuring out bound-with records to mark with 910s

UCSB: They have an issue with 856 42 updates. As of now, the norm rule strips them.

Decision: Because of the UCLA merge mess needing to be fixed still; because of the issue of 856s not yet being resolved; and because of Bound-withs not being settled yet, we’ll just wait, and NOT start WCU on Sept. 20. 

~ Other comments:

i. Some CDL work would mean there’d be multimatches.

ii. The CZ will come into play from when WCU begins, and serials catalogers will have to deal with that.

We will not start WCU.

No new date is set yet though.

856 41 removal

9/10 campuses are ok with removing all remaining 856 41s. Liz will send the list to Gem this week.

For UCSB: any 856 fields with “restricted” will be removed and the rest will stay until we have a better solution for things like the cylinder collections, etc.

UCB: If we know for sure that all 856 41s were converted to portfolios, then it seems safe to delete the 856.

If there are other indicator sets that we want to remove in a week or two, we will work on them.

MVP items

Review outstanding items, see if the timeline still makes sense

The group reviewed outstanding items in the RMFG tab of the above spreadsheet, and looked to see if the timelines still made sense.

~ For communicating out about Alma updates, perhaps Systemwide could share them on Slack, then the campus rep on Systemwide could share the important updates with their campuses.

A UC Riverside question

Yoko Kudo asked about CZ records:

 They’ve been using APIs (application programming interface), but it’s been causing problems, so they stopped it, and asked ExLibris to ignore CZ records. But that’s causing a different problem.

 ~ Should they move the holdings when the CZ record is good?

 ~ They could overlay them with the MDE.

 ~ What to do? 

Switch back to not ignoring the CZ? No, that won’t help.

Add the dup records?

Might be fine to replace the CZ bib with the Gobi one.

 ~ Sometimes a CZ and an NZ record are both OK to have…

(Liz M.: For a long time we’ll be having dup records in the CZ. OK as long as there’s not two NZ records for the same item.)

 ~ The future SILS Governance group will need to deal with this, but:

 ~ : for now, in the interests of getting things into the catalog, we could have our Best Practice be that it’s OK to have such dups. We’ll put this in our Best Practices doc.

Next meeting (9/28)

MVP items

WorldCat Updates