2021-03-23 Meeting notes

Updates (please add in advance)

10 mins

Liz:

• NZ account access

There are 3 accounts, each with a unique identifier. These are ONLY for systemwide RMFG to work with; do not share access. But you may share the data.

Liz M. wants to track scale and get a sense of what we’ll need.

• OCLC session was a great success, thank you to Sarah, Hermine, and TJ for everything!

  • follow up question - does same OCLC Gateway setup work with Worldshare record manager? (sarah)

  •  

• UCB:

Is starting to put together its training framework this week.

Apropos of this news, another campus told how one of their catalogers was dismayed to find out that all their good local special collections information won’t be visible to all in the consortium. People did think that being in a consortium would mean being able to share their good, helpful information.

ETDs

Voting meeting: review comments and fist-of-five vote

20 mins

Test template

“Ideal” ETD record

About the 502, 506, and 538, we agreed:

• 502: We would like to get more structure from Merritt for this field.

• 506: We would like to have a 506 for OA and a 506 for Embargo.

~ A big question is who will maintain it? … we can discuss that with Merritt, but it’ll probably be up to each campus.

~ These are probably going to wind up being non-local.

• 538: We are OK with getting rid of this.

About 610, 650, and 710:

• May be best to make these local, using a normalization rule.

Next step will be talking about it a lot more, with CDL.

Liz M. will make a final copy of the ETD document to share with Escalation.

Prep for 3/30 voting meeting

Adding/managing OA resources (voting meeting 3/30)

By next Monday, March 29 at 5:00 p.m. -- Answer the questions in RMFG Decisions Needed.

Notes on :

• This is local OA, not CDL.

• Deadline Monday, March 29 by 5:00 p.m. to answer the following two questions:

a. Is there a need to standardize the addition of the OA 506 field in ILS bibs?

b. Should campuses add $7 0 to their OA 856 fields prior to migration?

• Current 856 application is different at different campuses.

• Editorial comment from someone: It’s very odd that OAs are triggered from the bib record…

• What actually are our OA resources at our campuses? What is OA? (Does it mean something is free to read? Free to register for?)

• It would have been good to be able to add a 506 in OCLC, but you can’t make it pn (provider neutral) then.

~ We could add that locally and just make sure it doesn’t get overwritten by some NZ merge rule?

~ To do: Ask your campus what your policy is. Also ask your campus what is considered to be an OA. Shi D. will share her criteria.

~ TJ said an issue is in the CZ, with a bib without a 506 you can edit them in batch, and can add notes in your portfolio, but it is very hard. It’s still challenging to do in the IZ and the NZ, but is way harder to do in the CZ.

• Q.: Will local e-resources be visible to other campuses? A. We don’t know. Discovery is going to try to work on this. But RMFG can still make our own recommendation.

• Q. Maybe instead of each campus having these, OA could be an NZ collection? A. This would be a good post-migration conversation.

• Campuses should be told that this will be part of a longer conversation, with CDI also involved.

Local 856 data (voting meeting 3/30)

• Deadline Mon., March 29 by 5:00 p.m. to answer the following two questions:

1. Do all 856 40 and 856 41 fields need to be removed from bibs soon after migration (campuses would rely on the links in portfolios instead)?

2. Can campuses decide for themselves which 856 42 fields should be kept?

• Remember!: Very strange, but 856s that are not related resources or OA are confusing.  Not all campus 856s are retained; they are subject to the NZ “first-in” process. 

But don’t worry, the link is in the portfolio, not gone.

• Might be good for vendor communication to say what exactly you had in your 856.

Campus feedback due 3/29 at noon

RLF subgroup update

Meeting notes

Test plan

Notes on :

• A main concern is with Special Collections.

Probably that will be a local decision.

• This is a “bridge decision” to get us to migration. There will be deeper work on it later.

• Also later -- talking about the workflow for new RLF deposits.

Next steps: 

• We are now compiling examples of different fulfillment/Primo scenarios.

• Add the examples to RMFG test template.

• Liz will check in to see when we can schedule a follow up meeting with RLF staff (esp. Fulfillment).

OCLC Gateway and External Resource Demo?

UCB is interested in a live demo of the Gateway and External Search. Any other campuses interested?

Answer: Everyone pretty much wants to do this.

There are 2-hour blocks available on April 8 and April 15.

Looking ahead

and 7. “Various”

Upcoming decisions (note schedule change)

RLFs (voting meeting 4/06)

Public notes in RLF records (voting meeting 4/06)

Bib records to leave out of the NZ (voting meeting 4/13)

OCLC Worldcat Daily Updates

(voting meeting 4/13)

~. ~. ~

7. “Various”

a. Merge and normalization rules:

• Hermine said, We do need an RMFG-approved list of rules for Day 1. Liz’s reply: That’ll be on the MVP (minimum viable product), and also, people on campuses will need to talk to their RMFG rep about it.

   

  • We should specifically protect a range for local extensions, and it should be our RMFG job to teach about it. Q. Where would we store this info? A. In the NZ. We’d also want a naming convention and description of what each was. Let’s try for this by mid-May.

     

    • If there’s a particular merge rule you like (e.g. incoming 035 data), save it in the NZ, put your initials on it and RMFG. TJ will share his 035.

• b. Gateway on WorldShare Record Manager:

• Q. Does Gateway work the same for Connexion and for WorldShare Record Manager? A. No.

• Not many of us use WorldShare Manager, but it is in our distant future someday.

People will look at it in the Wed., March 24 systemwide Study Hall.