Non-OCLC IDs in 035 fields in bibliographic records for the Vanguard

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendations

There is no need to try to remove non-OCLC IDS from 035 fields in bibliographic data. Campuses can remove whatever non-OCLC 035 data that they wish to remove, or identify mixed sets for testing, but there is no mandate one way or the other.

Vanguard assessment:

Campuses should try to identify sets of records to check after migration to ensure that migration happened as expected or to document any problems that should be addressed for go-live.

Reasoning:

The Vanguard is a good place to test what happens to non-OCLC 035 data in the NZ and IZs. In theory records without an OCLC 035 should not should not come into the NZ. In addition, records that have 035s with a mix of OCLC and non-OCLC prefixed should migrate into the NZ just fine and the non-OCLC prefixes should be skipped. It would be good to know whether that’s the case before all 10 campuses migrate, especially since there are so many different 035 fields. If the data can be migrated cleanly without purging non-OCLC 035 data then campuses can save significant cleanup for go-live. If that is not the case then that cleanup can be prioritized more heavily.

Background

From ExLibris:

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Implementation_and_Migration/Migration_Guides_and_Tutorials/010Alma_Migration_Considerations_for_Consortia

You can either use a specified prefix, or you can use OCLC matching, but you cannot use both.

The UCs will be using OCLC matching, and therefore any records without an OCLC 035 should be left out of the NZ automatically.

Anecdotally, some FG members have heard from other consortia that there is evidence that non-OCLC numbers in 035 fields can create problems for moving data over.

Presence/absence of an OCLC 035 is supposed to be key to leaving records out of the NZ

Related decision pages: https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/RMF/pages/532119727

Action Log