/
(Test load) Configuration form Harmonization -- Resource Management

(Test load) Configuration form Harmonization -- Resource Management

Legend: status:not started status:IN PROGRESS status:STALLED status:decided

Status

status:decided

Scope

Test load

Description

Decide which parts of the configuration form should be standardized

Decision

Multiple recommendations, see below

Owning group

Resource Management

Approver

PPC

Stakeholders

R = Resource Management
A = Local groups
C =
I = Discovery, Local groups, PPC

Decision-making process

 

Priority

 

Due date

Jan 12, 2021

Recommendation

 

Reasoning

“Course restricted field” Ex Libris recommended standardizing this across the consortium but 2 Vanguard campuses already had conflicting data coming over in different fields. The group will assess any impacts on staff workflows and Primo for go-live

Brief level:

Working copy lock timeout:

9XX fields:

Background

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/@api/deki/files/76661/Alma_Configuration_Form_Guide.pdf?revision=10

CARLI guide: https://www.carli.illinois.edu/sites/files/i-share/documentation/CARLI_Alma_Config_form_Guide_Final.pdf

Dependencies

Any areas mandated or recommended by ExLibris

 

Questions to consider

ExLibris Recommends to leave as default:

  • Cataloging level available (should be FALSE)

  • Subfield separator ($$)

  • Match profiles (ExLibris has a recommended profile but this will be set in the NZ and filter down so campuses can leave whatever default comes through their pre-populated form)

Areas for standardization

  • Brief level (recommend 3)

  • Retrieve from NZ (True)

  • Authority names (ExL suggestion=LCNAMES)

  • Working copy lock timeout (recommend 1 hour)

  • System date format (MM/DD/YYYY)

    • there are only 2 options: MM/DD/YYYY and DD/MM/YYYY; the latter causes problems for Acquisitions

  • Course reserved field (agreed to use 969 already)

Areas that can stay fully local

  • Call number parsing

  • Authority usage (must select “local” if using any local authorities)

  • Barcodes

  • Metadata registry (only MARC21 is required, choose “Yes” and “Yes”)

  • Call number type

  • Use holdings form

  • Local field names

    • this is not the same as the standardization of the content of those fields, that decision is recorded here: (Test load) Local bibliographic data (5XX-9XX)

    • 590: Label: Local public note (590)

    • 690: Label: Local subject--Topic (690)

    • 691: Label: Local subject--Geographic (691)

    • 908: Label: Shared NZ processing note (908)

    • 956: Label: Local URL (956)

    • 970: Label: Local personal name (970)

    • 973: Label: Local collection name (973)

 

Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related content

The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!

Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu