2021-05-25 Meeting notes

Updates (please add in advance)

10 mins

Before the meeting started: 

Hermine V. was asking Shi D. about “My institution” view. When an SCP record is available, does it show up in Primo? UCLA wants to be able to see consortial licensed materials.

Shi said only 4% of SCP records are available in Alma yet. Shi will look in Basecamp.

Liz M. said, If you own it it will be included, if the resource has been set up as a participant. You can search by putting “available for” in Alma.

Shi added that the SCP e-resource page will tell you that the pack is done. [Jean: I don’t know what a “pack” is for sure.]

~. ~. ~

Meeting proper:

Liz:

• Liz and Sarah have a standing meeting with CDL ICs every Friday

• AEFG page approved at PPC (still need to dial in norm rules) (Go-Live) Vendor bib records/overlay rules and Import Profiles - AEFG w/ RMFG (MVP 003) . But we’ll still be doing wider testing on this with normalization rules.
  
  

• Follow up work order meeting. There was an ExLibris session on May 17 on Work Orders. It was not well received because they didn’t answer any of the questions that had been submitted. So, there will be a re-do of the Work Orders session on Thursday, June 3rd. If campuses have any questions to submit, send hem to our RMFG reps.

• The MarcEdit/Alma document is now in the Training Hub. It was not really an RMFG Decision-type of document.

   

Hermine:

• Preliminary results of authority control testing:

  • Overall, using reports exported from Authority Control Task list is effective for Day 1, especially the BIB heading found no matching AUT headings reports. In a 20-LCNAMES heading sample:

    • 11 headings required correction and controlling in OCLC

    • 7 headings had no corresponding NARs; no action taken

    • 2 headings were correct and controlled in OCLC but failed to link in Alma.

  • Many headings are controlled in Connexion but don’t link in Alma for various reasons. Question - Does this matter at all? Or is the only purpose of linking headings in Alma to aid in preferred term correction? If we do authority work in WorldCat and get daily updates, can we stop worrying about this, or does it have other ramifications?

    • What Alma considers an “ambiguous” match should often not be ambiguous. Example: 651 Winter Harbor (Me.) will not link even though it matches a 151--we think it’s because there is an existing 451 for Winter Harbor, Me. (a see reference to Winter Harbor (ME. : Town), and Alma normalizes them to be the same.

    • Alma is terrible at doing partial linking (e.g., linking on a 700 $a but not $t). Example record: MMS ID 9912345526206531, where none of the 700s link because of the (valid) presence of $s Vocal score at the end of each heading--since the entire string doesn’t match an authority record, Alma doesn’t link.

• Now that data migration specs are in, need to pivot to training planning.

UCB:

• If other campuses are recording their training, and are OK with it being shared, some Berkeley RMFG trainers were interested in the possibility.

• Tentatively scheduled cataloger training to begin on June 28.

RMFG import profile best practices

15 mins

Draft

What are people’s thoughts on 1 generic template "and then comments on how campuses can change/adjust?

• A good trick in Match actions -- Shi said you can test, and then put in “Do not import if there’s a match.”

Feedback is requested on this document by noon on Tuesday, June 1.

RMFG-MVP-004 Best practices for the Metadata editor, including WorldCat search for NZ and IZ records

Draft

• Misc. comment -- It may soon be possible to search the NZ from within the IZ Metadata Editor.

•  

• Match methods. Yoko K. noticed that on the OCLC match profile, which should include “other system identifier,” we assumed there was only one choice -- the one that matches on 035, but Yoko noticed there is another OCLC match profile choice. The other choice is “unique.”

Liz said, we will want to swap that out then.

We’ll look at this in Systemwide RMFG Study Hall this Wednesday, May 25, for those who can make it. The Study Hall will be recorded.

Feedback is requested on this document by noon on Tuesday, June 1.

(But campuses probably did a lot of going over this one already, so we may not have a lot more to add).

RMFG-MVP-005 Policy and workflow for working with the NZ Authority control task list

Draft

We could ask CDL to export these reports at the NZ level, then campuses who do authority work can use them.

(Question: Can the reports be “pre-cleaned” of things like bad punctuation?)

• Some campuses may never look at this. That’s perfectly fine. Some campuses do want it right away (like UCLA).

• UCLA sees utility in this report. It can be a tool to alert campuses about what work needs to be done. (But it isn’t a trivial action to take, it takes a really long time to set up facets, and running it takes a long time.)

• TJ K. was not necessarily for it. When they moved to Alma, they did try it out for the first two months, but they got overwhelmed with it. Conceptually it’s good, but they had no capacity to get any benefit out of it. In the end it is more realistic to do NACO and SACO work.

• CDL won’t have the capacity to do this for themselves, at first anyway.

• A lot of consortia just turn this feature off. (CSU for example)

• Liz and Hermine said But we do all win, if using this, even if it’s only workable for a campus who can actually do the work. 

• Svetlana suggested adding a mediation feature to the preferred terms.

 If you go to: Resources, then Authority control rules, then you can mediate Specific vocabularies. When used, the workflow looks as if it has flipped the subject headings in a record, but that hasn’t really happened.

Comments are due on this on Thursday, June 3, by 5 p.m.

RMFG-MVP-013 Policies for NZ record deletion

Draft

• CDL asked -- Do we want just one person doing all the deletes?

• We’ll revisit this next week.

Last

Last: About 899. Do we want it to be “suppress from external discovery field”? Answer: Yes.