2020-06-16 Meeting notes
Jun 16, 2020 03:00-04:30 PM
Zoom: contact chair for link and password
Attendees
@Belinda Egan (Unlicensed)
@Cathleen Lu
@Hermine Vermeij
@Jean Dickinson (Unlicensed)
@Martha McTear (Unlicensed)
@Sarah Wallbank (Unlicensed) (co-chair)
@Shi Deng
@TJ Kao (notes)
@Yoko Kudo
@Elizabeth Miraglia (chair)
Not attending
Latasha Means
Discussion items
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Updates |
| 10 mins | Liz
| Best place to record local campus' reaction to the group’s discussions/decisions? Possible places: Slack, local concerns page, decisions page, email, group email list, future meeting agenda. Among all, the decisions page seems the most appropriate place but people can document anywhere.
UCLA: Discussed what records to add to NZ. ACQ like to add order records to NZ. In addition, some thoughts have been giving to local 7xx. Wondered if regular OCLC update for Vanguard NZ bib will be in place. UCB: Contemplated the idea to identify which records are updated most recently by 005 among campuses. Questioned the rationale behind Marcive records for NZ. UCSB: Met ExL. Concerned with finding aids bib left out of NZ and the possibility of harvesting OAC or taking advantage of CZ. CDL: Questions about local field reserved for all campuses. (Liz has reached out to Discovery group for consultation on this subject) |
|
|
2 | Sandbox time: Primo and CZ/NZ/IZ edits |
| 20 mins |
| Examples: “Why cats land on their feet” CZ record, electronic portfolios, multiple institutions on 1 record, 9XX notes. People are curious about how Primo determines which bib records to display when the library has both physical and electronic formats for the same title. | Liz will ask the question on BaseCamp. The group will test the impact of duplicate bib records for ebooks/ejournals in the next meeting. |
|
3 | Review/update decision pages | Fist-of-five votes for potential Vanguard harmonization | 50 mins |
| Fist-of-five decision making (see page 12) Bibliographic records 9xx fields mapping for Vanguard 996: 1 field: UCSB, UCD, UCI 2 fields: Question: why duplicating in 035 and 996? 035 might disappear. But, people can always find them in the original version view. Question: If we choose to store all numbers in 996, what’s the pro and con between lumping everything in one 996 and using multiple 996s? Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ Agreement on records not to load into NZ: Local equipment; non-library reserves resources; records marked for deletion; On the fly records; Monograph records for analyzed serials lacking inventory (item record is linked to the serial record); Bound with records; Finding aids. One reminder: These decisions are for Vanguard bib records. | Question for all campuses:
Get feedback from campuses by Monday |
|
Future agenda items
mapping for 700/7XX fields
using 005 fields during migration?
OCLC update service during Vanguard?
How do OAC finding aids wind up in the CZ? (maybe look in sandbox?)
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu