2016-01-25 Meeting notes

Announcements

• • Campus visit(s): Data Migration Manager, Sarina Sinick, and Workflow Redesign Manager, Mallory DeBartolo
    • Luiz spoke with them about ebook management and other issues. They will be visiting each campus. Mallory is based and SJ and Sarina at SB. They will be at Northern TS meeting, as will Luiz.
  • Upcoming Technical Services Meetings (NoCal, Feb. 19 & SoCal, Mar. 29)
    • Agenda forthcoming.
  • Working Group Leads Chairs Monthly Meeting
    • Feb. 19, Luiz cannot attend in person, will speak to DW. Perhaps one of us can attend in his place?
  • Conference Call with Orbis TS Experts
    • BW provided names of contacts to Luiz, he will be setting up a conference call, perhaps next Monday afternoon.

• BTW: Test load was delayed due to a technical glitch; waiting to hear from ExLibris when upload is complete (later this week, maybe?)

Discussion Items 

(A)   Priorities, Progress Report, and Update for March Kickoff Meeting (See Brandon’s email “Looking Forward to 2016”)

Review Meeting Notes posted on ULMS website: https://calstate.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ULMST/Meeting+notes

1. Top 5 Priorities

Review Meeting Notes to identify priorities. Each member should bring to the meeting two priorities so that we can compile “Top 5 Priorities.” These should be our group’s 5 most critical operations or processes that need to have defined and understood workflows when Alma goes live.

• Carole’s top 2:
  • Defining master record, and approaches for enhancing network zone records (who gets to, etc.)
  • Shared E-resources in NZ (which models for ECC acquisitions & management
  • Steve
    • Models for E-resources mgmt in NZ / how to use KB effectively
    • Priority workflows for redesign (all functional areas)
    • Defining master record
  • Chris
    • Protecting local fields
    • Defining master record
    • Approaches for enhancing network zone records (who gets to, etc.)
  • Annie
    • NZ management, esp. Primo (OPAC) management –indexing, standardization & validation of fields
    • ER management workflow in NZ
    • NZ cataloging workflows
    • Collaborative acquisitions
    • Acquisitions PeopleSoft integration (more for Systems group?)
  • Stacy
    • Defining master record
    • E-resource mgmt. in NZ
  • Luiz
    • Workflows
    • E-resource mgmt. esp. for non-serial resources (ebooks); for instance, enhancement of metadata
    • Will type these up once we get Kayla’s priorities.

Carole asked if we should solicit some feedback from the working group listserv once we have a list; it was agreed that we should do so.

Progress Report

This info will be used in the next project update at the COLD Meeting on February 4-5. This doesn’t have to be lengthy, but should be an accurate reflection on what your working group has accomplished to date and what you plan to address over the next 4-6 months.

• • Carole has volunteered to help Luiz with this. He will send tomorrow or next day for our feedback before sending on. 

There will be a day set aside for Vanguard campus debriefing as well as updates and discussions regarding issues, discoveries and thoughts around the functional areas represented by the working groups. Each group should plan to be able to discuss progress to date, plans for the pring and share advice amongst one another as well as attending peers. The March kickoff meeting will be in late March.

• • Date is not set yet; late March? Luiz may need help with this report when the time comes. 

1. Inventory of Local Fields” Survey: Complete analysis, draft document & distribute for discussion
2. Documents (distribution of tasks, etc.)
3. Others?

Luiz has created several documents with basic outlines (templates) and put on Google Drive for all of us to work on. He suggests that each of us select an area of interest/expertise and look around for models, such as Orbis documentation, survey data, etc., and start filling out the outline.

Suggest assigning 2 people to work on each document, then bring to group. Agreed; Luiz will create the list. They will go to a folder “Working” on Google Drive. Luiz and Chris will work first on a local fields document.

 Chris asks re local fields: Did Northridge have to identify local fields for your test load?

• Yes; it’s part of the migration form. You must choose fields/subfields to migrate and where to map them. If you don’t do so, you will lose them. (For example, 590, put into a subfield 9 local.)

Of course you need to be able to identify which fields you may have used over time. Steve noted that he recently did a search of his 5xx’s to try to identify these and moved some. Luiz notes that we need to reserve some 9xx’s for individual campus use, and other 9xx’s for network zone use.

• Steve asks re: 655 (genre); what if subfield 2 coded local? Luiz says, you could create a review file to collate them, then re-map to 694, as Orbis Cascade did. What about 655 blank 4? [sorry, I didn’t follow the rest of the explanation, SM]
• Orbis currently does not allow libraries to input local notes in Community Zone records. They don’t want them to behave like Network Zone records. But if we could designate a range of 9xx’s as NZ usable, that would enable some notes at the network level. Chris notes that as they work on moving their local notes, it would be helpful to know which ranges were so designated (since they’re already working on it). Stacy asks, what sort of local note would go in a NZ local note? Luiz suggests info about e-resources packages; that is to say, a note that is “local” to the whole system, but not necessarily for a campus. But this is a question we can pose to the Orbis folks.
• Steve noted that special collection cataloging could get messy, for example donor/origin on an item.
• Steve asked about contents notes in 970, which his campus pays for as an enhancement from YBP. Luiz will consult Brandon.
• Luiz noted that libraries who send records out for RDA enhancement will need to stop at some point.

Chris asks, what is master record in test load? Luiz thinks it was first-in, the option we don’t like. Luiz noted there could be an option, after the initial load, to overlay whatever became the “master” record with the latest version from OCLC, or to use an algorithm to try to determine which record is most authoritative; so, a hybrid method. DW reached out for some guidance, but there was no time to get this settled before the vanguard load. Will be discussed more once we see the results of the vanguard load. 

Next meetings

• February 8 (2^nd Monday) –hopefully will be conference call with Orbis folks
• February 22 (4^th Monday)