Vanguard local RLF bibliographic record migration

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendations

For the Vanguard, UCB and UCLA will migrate NRLF and SRLF records with their main data load into both their IZs and the NZ. Vanguard campuses can decide for themselves whether they want to migrate local RLF bibliographic records into their local IZ only, both their IZ and the NZ, or some combination, or not at all.

Campuses should track how they have decided to migrate their local RLF data in order to test how the records act in both Alma and Primo.

Reasoning:

Not all campuses will have the same capacity to separate their local RLF data from the rest of their records. In addition, the local campus version of a record for an RLF resource may or may not have the same OCLC number or the same level of description. Special Collections data in particular may have fuller descriptions in local campus ILSs and so it will be worthwhile to let campuses decide whether they want to migrate their records for the Vanguard. There is also a larger RLF discussion happening, including the new RLF SILS Planning Group and so it makes sense to keep options open for now while other groups are working on that question.

Assessment for Vanguard:

Check local RLF records that were migrated to compare with the copies migrated by UCB and UCLA, specifically with regard to duplication, data quality, and impacts on fulfillment and Primo.

Background

ExLibris documentation: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/100Managing_Multiple_Institutions_Using_a_Network_Zone/03_Managing_Records_in_Consortia/010Network-Managed_Records_in_a_Network_Zone)

From Phase 3:

Given that there are records for items in the RLFs in both UCLA’s and Berkeley’s catalogs plus the campuses’ catalogs, what records for RLF items do we migrate? All records (which would result in duplicate holdings in most cases)? Should the campuses delete all their RLF records? But for analyzed serials deposited into the RLFs, the RLFs only have holdings under the serial record, so should campuses migrate their mono analytic records in such cases? How would identify all cases of these? What about Special Collection records for items deposited into RLFs? The campuses have been maintaining those records much more so than the RLFs so should the campus records be migrated and the RLF records deleted? Do we need to ensure that holdings awaiting RLF processing at the time of migration remain in our local catalog at the point of migration? What will the Alma workflow be for items being transferred to the RLFs once we migrate

See other decision pages: https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/RMF/pages/495485291 https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/RMF/pages/532119727

Questions to consider

Can we load the RLFs as their own campuses?

Should campuses purge their RLF data before loading?

What about serial analytics?

What about Special Collections?

What about items not yet fully processed for the RLFs?

Action Log