(Test load) MARCIVE Bibliographic Records in the NZ

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided




Test load


Determine how MARCIVE records should be handled in the NZ



Owning group





A = ILSDC, Resource Management FG
C = PPC, CDL Acquisitions, CDL in the NZ subgroup, RMFG

Decision-making process



Mandatory for go-live

Due date

Nov 6, 2020


SCP will use UCSD’s MARCIVE bibliographic records for electronic resources (not composite records) as a base file for the entire system. The records will be loaded directly into the NZ along with several other SCP collections that have been outlined on this page: https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PPC/pages/830996548

TSELG suggests that, to the extent possible, campuses not migrate their non-composite e-resource MARCIVE records. If non-composite e-resource MARCIVE records need to be migrated for any reason, they should not be migrated into the NZ. ILSDC can provide guidance on how to prevent records from coming into the NZ. Campuses can also choose to migrate their composite MARCIVE records and those can be added to the NZ but campuses should be aware that they will not be part of system-wide maintenance. RMFG will create import profiles and processing guidelines during test load, go-live and in the remaining months of Phase 4.


UCSD is able to identify their MARCIVE records and they are the easiest for SCP to use since they are in the same Millennium ILS. Purchasing a base file directly from MARCIVE is not only more expensive but actually creates more work for SCP since that file would have to be processed separately from the other SCP extracts and then incorporated into them for delivery to Ex Libris. Loading a base file after migration also creates a large workload for SCP and they will be extremely busy with cleanup and other new purchases. The decision to only use non-composite e-resource records was made because, while MARCIVE does use some “composite” records (records for print or microform resources with URLs added), SCP no longer uses those records and will not load them into the system. Most (all?) campuses have also already started switching away from composite records. In addition, Alma does not always handle composite records well in terms of search results for staff or users in Primo. Best practices dictate that only non-composite e-resource records should be used. Staff at UC libraries can request that GPO catalog the electronic version of a resource as they come across gaps in the collection.



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

TSELG is exploring a recommendation that CDL negotiate a system wide license for MARCIVE since all of the campuses have some kind of subscription. There are questions about workflow and discovery, especially what happens if the records are loaded directly into the NZ. RMFG has been asked to test loading a sample file into the Vanguard FG and making it available for all campuses.


CDL license negotiation: can this be done before go-live?


Questions to consider

Do campuses need individual files of MARCIVE records?

They are not mandatory for test load.

Who will load/process files?

For Vanguard, who will load a test file into the NZ?

UCSD is willing to test a mono and serial file.

If possible, would we like the vendor to set holdings in OCLC?

Is a separate update file necessary?

Should we stick with e-resource records only or the full MARCIVE catalog that includes composite records?


Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date



Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date











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

Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu