Local Concerns

**Please include your campus or ILS if it’s relevant to the issue

UCSF (Millennium)

What to do about soft-linking, where item records are linked to multiple bib records. This is related to certain serials with analyzed titles, so it would also be helpful to know in general how campuses are treating those.
We have suppressed records that historically have been kept around for statistics or additional types of longer-term recordkeeping. There’s been some initial discussion on whether to just export those and save in a file or database somewhere or migrate those too (Note: This also came up with other campuses
Whether to migrate SCP records
Electronic resources management for materials

UCSD (Millennium)

Serial analytics in general: where to record treatment and what to do with analytics for e-resources
Statistics (what we can record and where)
Known-item searches/advanced catalog searching
Batch cataloging: we do a lot of batch work and want to be sure we can do similar things
Publish to OCLC: need to keep our 856 data (and possibly other fields) out of the data sync process

UCD (Alma)

Management of locally purchased vs. group purchased electronic collections (It will be awesome if CDL can turn on group-purchased electronic collections and manage bib records for electronic resources in Network Zone. So, each campus only has to manage locally purchased electronic collections.)
SCP record ingestion workflow
Metadata management in Network Zone among campuses (An agreed upon policy on how to add/enhance/replace/maintain Network Zone bib records)
UCD Law will load their data into UCD’s IZ. Currently, UCD Law is on Millennium. I am wondering how the migration/integration will be handled.

UCR (Alma)

When and how to use Community Zone
When and how to use electronic collections; creating local collections vs. linking to CZ collections
Records for database type resources: e-portfolios vs. e-collections
Workflow in relation to e-portfolios (activation, linking to descriptive (bib) records, linking to e-collections, etc.)
Authority control: who manages updates that require manual intervention?

UCLA (Voyager)

Tagging/protecting local data not currently in local fields (500s, 700s, etc.)
Incorporating two databases (Film and Television Archive and Ethnomusicology Archive) currently in different instances of Voyager
Series authority control--keeping track of local treatment decisions
Authority control in general!
SPACs - data we track in 901 fields (both bib and holdings) to create “virtual collections,” like gifts or things purchased from a fund.
Cataloging statistics - currently tracked in 948 fields in bib records.
Shelf-ready records purchased from vendors--are they shareable in the NZ?
Bound-withs--some are coded using Voyager’s linking; others only have 501 fields to link.
Suppressed records--some are suppressed for a good reason; others should have been deleted.
Records with no OCLC numbers - we are mitigating as much as possible, but especially without the ability to page items right now, we will still have some. Will they be shareable in the NZ? What about SRLF records with no OCLC numbers?
Records with duplicate OCLC numbers (i.e., we have two records in our system with the same 035 OCLC number). We are merging what we can, but some have local differences (pagination, edition, publication date, etc.), that again cannot be reconciled until we can actually look at our physical items.

UCI (Alma)

Some initial guidelines for editing records in the NZ

UCSC (Alma)

Presuming that our small campus won’t be supplying master records in the network zone, we are concerned about local data being lost or overwritten on download into our institution zone
Bound-withs
How will our Special Collections holdings at NRLF be handled?

UCSB (Alma)

Tagging/protecting local data not currently in local fields (500s, 700s, etc.) - methods for mitigating potential data loss, especially in regards to Special Collections materials
Duplicate OCLC numbers in bib records - Special Collections materials are problematic for us to merge currently due to past practices and lack of access to materials during shelter at home status
Metadata management in Network Zone among campuses - who will have permissions for what?
Bound-withs - linking; inconsistent use of 500s, 501s, and 590s to indicate

SCP (Millennium, co-existed in UCSD ILS)

Can SCP records migrate first, if not what alternative would work for SCP?
If SCP records do get migrate first in December, may SCP has cataloging freeze period for the duration until SILS go-live date? SCP may need focus their time and emerge in Alma to figure out how to add new records and develop new workflow and procedures, SCP may not be able to add new records to Millennium the same time work in Alma. What does it mean to campuses? What is SCP’s priorities?
SCP records and CDL acquisitions, ERM, SFX are live in separate silos, how SCP P2E file should be configured and later on to be connected to their corresponding CDL inventory records?
Once in Alma Network Zone, how SCP will manage MARC records for CDL Tier 1& 2 contents in NZ when the records will be shared with all campuses, the local editing fields SCP has been use, which can be carried on and which need to be changed and in what way? What happened if campus has better record for the same title than SCP record, will SCP has the right to switch the record with associated data before deleting the record?

UCB (Millennium)

About making sure to use the 005: A huge number of problem records coming from Acquisitions have been to update our serial records for LC-acquired titles as well as numerous others. At first our serials cataloger put them off thinking reclamation might happen but since UCB is a vanguard location, he decided to just update them now and not rely on reclamation to update the bibs (esp since our IC said overlaying existing bibs probably wouldn't happen). ~. ~. What that means is that when ours get loaded, for those recently updated, they'll be the most current version that matches the OCLC master record, BUT we have sooo many records that are sub-par (i.e. have 1984 cat dates) where the OCLC master record is much fuller and/or another UC's copy is far fuller/more current. If ours goes in first, the other UC's end up on a crummy record (unless the auto-update feature is turned on in Alma which will overlay bibs that have been recently updated but that will only happen if an update happened *after* migration has happened, it won't update the bibs from crummy to fuller "just because"). ~. ~. The gist is...UCB has a lot of govno serial bibs, so taking the 005 into consideration seems a good way to not end up with other libraries losing out on their fuller bibs.