2020-06-23 Meeting notes

Updates

30 mins

Liz

New Meeting time: 3:10 PM

Updates from Vanguard Campuses Q&A sessions with ExLibris.
(Key takeaways, anything that needs to be added to decision pages?)
UCSB: OAC in CZ would be just one record for an entire database which would not be an option.
UCLA:
-- Migration involves combining three databases; ExLibris will not be able to help deduplication between the databases.
-- Analytics’s search may be powerful but generating reports would need more steps.
-- Pre-migration decisions and specs need to be ready by July 2.
UCSD: Discussed P2E process.
CDL/SCP:
-- Had a meeting with ExLibris, PCC, ACQ/RRM FG; most SCP questions answered.
-- Migration process: loading records > P2E > SFX data; will test SFX > P2E with a small set of records.
-- P2E process may be able to allow more than one 856 $z note.

Deadline updates
New final deadline for Vanguard is July 31; decisions made this weel will give time for campuses to get the data ready, correct them, and communicate with ExLibris.

Review/update decision pages

Vote on draft recommendations in order to submit decisions to PPC on 6/26

45 mins

PPC has asked that these decisions be finalized and submitted by 6/26.

Overall goal of these decisions is to give campuses time and flexibility to compile data.

Local 856 bibliographic data for the Vanguard
--Still unclear what will happen to local 856s; possible they get lost upon matching against NZ
--Notes (coverage, etc.) in $3, $x, $z are important for some campuses.
--UCSD will copy to 956; UCB will do nothing.
--How useful is copying to holdings records when holdings records will not be retained in Alma? > It will help P2E which will look for linking info in holdings first, and then bibs, but maybe not so useful for the purpose of reserving the data after migration; leave it as an option in the recommendation? – yes; UCLA could test the holdings option with a small set of records.
-- The first-in record’s 856 will be shared with all campuses in NZ/Primo; should campuses remove 856s from bibs? Can ExLibris remove them after P2E? > Recommend copying data, not moving it for now.
-- How does Primo pick up 856s in bibs for finding aids? > Refer to Discovery FG.

Non-OCLC IDs in 035 fields in bibliographic records for the Vanguard
--Uncertain at this point whether the presence of non-OCLC 035s will affect the migration process or not > Testing mixed data would help learn how the data behaves.

Bibliographic records 9xx fields mapping for Vanguard

9XX indexing update from Basecamp

--Are Vanguard campuses planning to move all 9XX or only some of them? > UCSD: only selected fields; UCB: some unique fields
--793 collection title? > option to move to 9XX but there is not mandate > add a note to the recommendations.

Bibliographic records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ
--Group consensus on eight categories; votes were divided on the other categories > due to tight timeline, provide only advisory notes and leave the decision up to campuses.
-- Records with sharing limitations category has update from TS Escalation group; Will need further investigation/negotiation for go-live
--What to do to prevent suppressed records from migrating to NZ?; so far removing/editing OCLC # is the only way.
--Abbreviated records brought in by ACQ in NZ?
--What does “bound-with” exactly mean?; TJ’s demo
--Are campuses planning to migrate campus RLF records? What will the holdings look like?; how can historical information (provenance, etc.) be maintained? > Will need further investigation post-Vanguard.

Fist-of-five decision making (see page 12)

(Decisions will be forwarded to PPC and finalized on Friday)

Recommendations for 856 local data for the Vanguard: All in favor (5 or 4); no further discussion

Recommendations for Non-OCLC 035 data for the Vanguard: All voted in favor (all 5)

Recommendations for Field mapping for Vanguard 9XX fields: All in favor (5 or 4); no further discussion

Recommendations for Records to leave out of the Vanguard NZ: All in favor (5 or 4); no futher discussion

Sandbox time