Order of Network Zone Record Loading - Vanguard

Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED

Recommendation

The Vanguard network zone needs to be populated with bibliographic data from all the Vanguard campuses, which will then get matched to subsequently-loaded local bib data. Other types of data will be loaded into respective Institution Zones separately and do not affect this recommendation. We recommend that vanguard campus MARC data be migrated to the Vanguard Network Zone in the following order:

CDL (whatever data is decided is best, see below; scope would include SCP extract separate from UCSD)

UCLA+SRLF

UCSD

UCB+NRLF

UCSF

UCSB

This decision does not include recommendations about how other data sources will be loaded into the Vanguard system. Those decisions will be recorded on other pages including SCP, SFX, and related resource records handling for eResource records in NZ

Reasoning: CDL has the most updated and complete copy of records for e-resources, in addition to having valuable campus data that should not be lost. UCLA is concerned about a loss of local notes in their special collections data, has a large collection and has done CONSER and NACO work. UCSD has been a regular PCC participant (CONSER, BIBCO, NACO) and regularly processes bib change notifications from OCLC and so likely has the most recent copy of a given record. UCB has a huge collection and a variety of data that should be experimented with to see what happens in the NZ. It will be important to take note of what they gain from the campuses that go in ahead of them and also what happens to data from campuses that go in afterwards. UCSF wanted to be last among the Millennium campuses to see what updates they could get to their records and UCSB was somewhat interested in going last to see what happens to Alma data in that scenario.

Future policy recommendation:

While discussing what order to load records we also started to discuss who would be able to edit which records in the NZ. We recommend that campuses are responsible for maintaining inventory in the NZ (that is if you withdraw a resource or otherwise lose access, make sure the NZ reflects that) but changes and updates to bib data can and should be shared across the system, especially in the Vanguard phase.

Assessment - how will we know that this test worked or not in the Vanguard?

Background

Having previously decided to follow a “New Shared Catalog” option During Migration, files loaded first from Institution Zones into the Alma Network Zone (NZ) will act as the master record for the Consortia. As we plan for the migration of the UC Library records, we need to determine which records we want loaded first.

Questions to consider:

1. In what order will records be loaded to the Network Zone for the Vanguard?  If we do not yet know the specific order, do we know whether the Network Zone will be built beginning with the existing Alma campus (UCSB) followed by non-Alma campuses, or the other way around, or are we free to choose the order regardless of Alma installation?  

   1. If SCP records will be included from all campuses, then we would want you to consider loading SCP/UCSD first into the NZ since the SCP catalog contains the original form/complete set of records.

      1. See also: SCP, SFX, and related resource records handling for eResource records in NZ

      2. SCP records are all electronic, so they would be a P2E file, not bib records. There are ways to manage e-resources in the CZ while still maintaining better metadata in the NZ; more discussion needed.

      3. We’re all happy with SCP records loading first.

      4. Should other shared inventories (RLFs) also go in before other campuses?

   2. Whoever maintains (loads instead?) the master record is the one who has to do maintenance on those records over time.

      1. Descriptive fields/access points should be fair game for any campus

      2. Campuses should be responsible for maintaining inventory in NZ (e.g., if you are the only holding library and you withdraw your copy, you should remove the record from the NZ)

      3. Recommendation should include some principles/policy for systemwide maintenance (in addition to main order of load).

   3. Would we have to keep the same set of ‘first loads’ order for implementation? (would the non-vanguard campuses ‘have’ to be after vanguard campuses?)

      1. Depends on how it goes!

2. Question for ExL: The CSUs apparently were offered an option to load OCLC Master record from OCLC by OCLC number. What’s the about? Can we do that? OCLC master record becomes the NZ master record, and everyone else attaches to that. → See basecamp question and answer: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/messages/2656132957

   1. Answer ExL gave: we would have to provide a MARC file of those records in order for them to load it.

   2. Not all records have OCLC numbers. And records have information in them that are not in OCLC.

   3. Under what circumstances would we want this?

      1. For records that have been merged (i.e., our local bibs have an old OCLC number), can they match on the 019?

      2. Would need to encourage all 10 campuses to do this.

      3. If we did this for the NZ, could we still have local records in IZ?

      4. How does the record load work? If a less full record loads first, would fields from fuller records loaded later be added?

      5. Re:Systemwide OCLC reclamation: it has come up in some contexts but given it feels unlikely that we’d be able to pursue anything that has a significant cost associated.

   4. Should the RLFs go in before the other campuses.

Dependencies

Action Log