(Test load)Local 856 bibliographic data

Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED

Recommendations [DRAFT]

• If they are concerned about losing data, campuses are strongly encouraged to consider copying all 856 fields in their bibliograhic records into a 9XX field of their choosing (between 950 and 999) or into the 856 of a holdings record

• SCP will copy their 856 data into a 946 field

• Campuses should document where 856 data has been copied

• Generally, campuses should not remove their data from existing 856 fields prior to submitting files to Ex Libris

• Campuses should remove all 856 41 and 856 40 fields from their bibliographic records after migration. 856 42 fields can remain.

• Bibliographic records with only 856 42 fields should not be sent through P2E

Reasoning:

Background

From ExLibris CDL Q&A 6/16/2020: migrated bibs will retain 856 fields so long as the bib is not overlaid. This also means it is likely that IZ bibs will lose their 856 fields if the bib matches an NZ record. 856 fields also do not populate Primo, all links com from the portfolios created during migration.

ExLibris documentation: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/070Alma-Summon_Integration/050Display_Configuration/030Managing_Display_and_Local_Fields

https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Product_Documentation/020Primo_VE/025Display_Configuration/040Configuring_Local_Display_and_Search_Fields_for_Primo_VE

See other decision pages: Bibliographic records 9xx fields mapping for Vanguard SCP, SFX, and related resource records handling for eResource records in NZ - VANGUARD Non-9XX local data for the Vanguard

Questions to consider

Some campuses have started moving data already, is it worth creating 1 prescribed field?

Is there any advantage to using a 9XX in a bib over a holdings field

Holdings records are considered first during the P2E process so that should be taken into account when preparing data

Action Log