2020-10-06 Meeting notes

Updates

20 mins

All

Campus buddies:

UCMerced, UCSC, UCR are not settled completely yet. The Implementation Coordinators (ICs) will be contacted.

Alma certification:

Five of our systemwide RMFG members are now certified. Strategies on its use were discussed.

Study hall tomorrow: pushed down to 10:30-11:30. Drop in as you are able or energy allows.

Decision page vote

20 mins

All

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

The recommendation was voted as follows: There is no need to try to remove non-OCLC IDS from 035 fields in bibliographic data.

Test load draft page

Review campus feedback.

Decision page review

Review Vanguard pages that will be voted on at the next meeting

20 mins

Local 856s

Decision due next Monday, Oct. 12.

• Maybe put the 856s in Holdings records? But that requires a lot of work and bandwidth.

• Suppressed bibs with 856 will generate a portfolio. We do not want this. 

• Do we want to recommend some post-migration cleanup on this?

• UCSF might want to treat some 856s differently, so having a recommendation on how we want to treat these is a good idea.

• Knowing that 856 is not local might make us decide in a certain way.

• Can campuses copy the 856 data over? And can we delete the copy after we’ve migrated? In general, how do we want to handle where 856s move to.

• People are thinking of moving their 856s to 956.

• Do 856 42s make it through? Yes. 

• Most 856 40 and 856 41 will be wiped out.

 Answers may depend on which campus will the have the first record in.

 It’s salutary to always imagine your 856s might disappear, and be getting prepared in all ways that you can, for that. Also good to imagine that your 856s will end up in other campus’s IZs.

In the end, we must try to make our best answer, regardless of possibilities like who’s in first, etc.

There may be no ideal option.

What additional questions do we need to address? Any additional testing?

Vanguard data

Field questions/observations about Vanguard data

20 mins

Campus and general updates, comments:

1. UCLA. a. Has 49,000 sets of internal dups., mostly items that had not been merged between SRLF and the library. Has anyone else tried to fix such things? (either in Voyager or in Alma). b. Has had a problem getting its 019s into Alma, both current OCLC 035a and older OCLC 035z.

2. UCSD is considering NOT adding Special Collections to the NZ, then linking at some later date. Maybe do an Export and re-import….

3. UCSB was worried that ocm, ocn and on in OCoLC numbers might not all match. But it’s OK, they do.

4. There’s a weird error that ExLibris has made: 7XX and 856 fields have no Local extensions! We are kind of amazed.

5. UCLA Special Collections is thinking about unlinking its records from the NZ. They don’t feel that they would actually lose much functionality. It would make things easier too, because of not having to do a lot of clean-up, someone else said. 

   UCSB said maybe Music and other types of specialities would like to do this too.

   We may put together a new decision page about this topic.

6. There is an unfortunate divide in Alma, between ease of work with electronic records, and clunkiness of work in physical records.

7. Marcive: Liz will put together a subset of monos into the NZ, to see how it works; we’re still figuring out how to test this.

8. In ExLibris there is a voting mechanism, for what we want to see changed, enhanced, fixed, etc. Our question is - do we get eleven votes, as each campus, or, just one vote, as a consortium?