2020-10-27 Meeting notes

Oct 27, 2020 03:10-04:30 PM

Zoom: contact chair for link and password

Attendees

  • @Belinda Egan (Unlicensed)

  • @Cathleen Lu

  • @Hermine Vermeij

  • @Jean Dickinson (Unlicensed)

  • @Latasha Means

  • @Martha McTear (Unlicensed)

  • @Sarah Wallbank (Unlicensed) (co-chair) (notes)

  • @Shi Deng

  • @TJ Kao

  • @Yoko Kudo

  • @Elizabeth Miraglia (chair)

Not attending

 

 

Discussion items

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who

Notes

Decisions

Local group takeaways

Actions

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who

Notes

Decisions

Local group takeaways

Actions

1

Updates (please add in advance)

 

0 mins

All

 

Liz won’t be available for the RMFG study hall on Wednesday 10/28. The meeting is set to auto-record and people should be able to join/screen share so feel free to meet if there is interest.

Discovery group input: the Discovery FG has asked for RMFG input/assistance on some usability testing for November. Liz will send around an email with more information.

 

 

Stages of the migration:

  • Vanguard (current stage, ends Oct.)

  • Full implementation (starting November)

    • test load

    • go live

See the project timeline

Discovery user testing - invite Discovery people to our next meeting and decide from there best way to proceed

Sub-group will test OCLC update soon

November:Will have multiple meetings on order of test load

Discussions on Marcive and other shared collections are ongoing. More soon. Some direction on migration needs in relation to these coming

2

Decision page votes

 

80 mins

 

Non-9XX local data

9XX field mapping

Review WRLC and CARLI mappings, anything we can re-purpose with few/minor edits?

  • Can we agree on 590 for a local public note?

  • Can we agree on the 69X mapping from CARLI?

  • Formalize system ID choice: is there any use for the 992?

  • 7XX mapping?

  • Acquisitions fields? Can we pick 2-4 fields in 96X and 98X to reserve for them?

Non-9xx local data

Long Term Goal:

  • We will base local fields on the CARLI model. In the long term, UC will benefit by consistency across the campuses. We recognize this will be achieved in manageable stages

  • We will work with ILSDC on how to manage this in the test load and go-live stages, and beyond go-live

For Test Load:

  • use 590 for local public note. Can use other 59x fields if need to, but for migration most local notes can go into 590

  • NOTE: all 59x notes (and other local notes) must be labeled as local ($9 LOCAL)

  • 69x: we will adopt the entire CARLI 69x range except for the 693. Reserve 693 for our future use. For test load, move local data to these fields as far as possible

  • 79x: must go to 9xx field (see below in 9xx field discussion)

9xx field mapping

For test load:

  • 956: copy 856 info into this field

  • 996: existing system IDs (from Vanguard decision)

  • 992 for older system ID, if desired

  • 969: use for course reserve information

  • 970, 971, 972, 973 (793 data) use the CARLI definitions

9??: Cataloging statistics

908: NZ shared field for processing (Marcive, OCLC updates, etc)

Aeon request link - not needed

 

Campus feedback due 10/26.

 

 

Consultant feedback due 10/21

Share CARLI model with local groups as our final goal/vision. Incorporates OCLC BF&S, etc

Discuss with local groups - Are 14 fields enough for local campus use? Do some campuses need more (RLFs, etc)?

Liz will combine these two decision pages into one decision page

UCB: has some NRLF numbers in 992 - not sure if that is needed. Will confer with ILSDC on feasibility of moving/use needs

 

 

 

 

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

Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu