1 PM


Discussion items

General announcements

Updates from SILS GroupsGroup Representatives
  • Resource Management Functional Group (TJ, Cathleen, Martha, Belinda)
    • Waiting on feedback from consulting groups on campus
    • RLF group decisions will affect how records are loaded
  • ILS Data Cleanup (TJ, Josh, Cathleen)
    • Troubleshooting and looking at tests to run in the Vanguard load
  • Archives & Special Collections Escalation Leaders (Jasmine, Jessica)

Resource Management Functional Group input

RMFG has asked for CKG input on the following decisions. To start conversation vanguard campuses (UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCSF, and UCSB) will discuss their findings on these issues.

They are interested in opinions on:

  • The decision as it stands
  • Impacts on Special Collections data in terms of search retrieval (both in Alma and Primo)
  • Any Special Collections data that was lost during the migration process

Vanguard local RLF migration (due 10/13)

keep guideline vague or be more specific in final load?

  • UCSD sent SC materials and analytic set records
    • Records without OCLC numbers show up in UCLA's institution zone
      • Lost local edits because SRLF record loaded first
      • Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois has a possible workaround
      • Non-UCLA Special collections titles deposited at SRLF have their own unique library code
      • Concern about enhanced records not in the SRLF record and confusion over number of copies
      • Loan policies for special collections items at SRLF need to be robust in PRIMO
      • Some 9xx fields changed
  • UC Berkeley: data seems ok; 
  • UC Irvine:
  • UCSB sent everything
    • Split collections at UCSB and SRLF are confusing; looks like UCLA has a copy

Non-9XX local data (due 10/21)

  • UCSB did not have time to do cleanup work
  • UCLA (LSC) moved most local information to 59x and 99x fields (stragglers in the 541)
  • UCB moved all local fields to 59x and 99x fields, missing 752s due to UCLA titles loading first
  • UCSD has most local data in the 590
  • UCSB finding UCLA local data in their records; thinking about not linking titles to the NZ
  • Can we harmonize? 
    • Depends on each library's current use of the fields
    • May be possible to harmonize post-migration
    • WRLC worked on harmonization projects across campuses

Bibliographic records 9XX field mapping (due 10/21)

  • Addressed above?

 Bibliographic records to leave out of NZ  
Are institutions considering leaving their special collections records out of the NZ?  Special Collections is not on the list of records to consider leaving out of the NZ that RMFG compiled for the Vanguard.  Would we like a system wide option/decison on this?  

  • Consortial catalog searches all IZs even if title is not linked to NZ
  • Stay out of the NZ to buy time to merge records/enhance records? 
    • Would result in multiple records for the same title showing up
    • New titles would be added to the NZ, legacy titles would be added over time
    • Are there better tools in Alma?
    • Wait to hear from the RMFG
  • UCLA FATA has many titles lacking OCLC numbers. Could use the extra time
  • UCLA (LSC) has many general library titles deposited at SRLF using LSC location codes
  • RMFG may have the final say

OCLC updates (time permitting)Nina

OCLC Worldshare

  • UCB and UCSD enhance OCLC records
  • UCLA (Clark and YRLSC) historically have not enhanced OCLC records

Next meeting
Our next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, Oct. 19th.  

Action items