Attendees

1. Dijana Kladnjakovic (Co-Chair), Humber College

2. Stacey Boileau (Co-Chair), OCLS

3. Angela Ashton, Lambton College

4. Irene Sillius, Sheridan College

5. Mary-Margaret Mirtsos, Centennial College

6. Melissa Forget, St. Clair College

7. Sarah Gillard, George Brown College

8. Najeeb Ahmed, Humber College

9. Callen Retter, Confederation College

10. Tiffany Miller, Confederation College

11. Carrie Cousineau, St. Lawrence College

12. Jasper Romo, Georgian College

Regrets

1. Susan Lee, Conestoga College

2. Rosina Leung, Seneca College

Action Items

• All Subcommittee Members to Review the Briefing Note 01 - Bibliographic and Holding Data Migration Approach and add comments directly to BN or send to Dijana and Stacey. Please do not make changes to the document. Due before meeting that will be scheduled the week of Oct. 18.
• Liana Giovando to add all BSWG members to the Metadata/Cataloguing Subcommittee Group in Confluence.

Discussion Items

Migration Approach

Briefing Note 01 - Bibliographic and Holding Data Migration Approach

First Approach - Colleges Union Catalogue (CUC)

This involves using Colleges Union Catalogue as a base to build the Network Zone. It allows for more records out of the gate and the records will meet minimum requirements for facets for discovery layer. This means records will display appropriately in Primo. However, CUC never updated records, work will need to be done by OCLS to update records to preserve catalogue work, such as decolonization, done in recent years.

Second Approach - Contribution Method

Colleges would be loaded by a pre-determined order based on factors such as size, quality of records but essentially the first record ‘in’ becomes the master record in the Network Zone. All records to have Sirsi 035 to build network zone. Any recent catalogue work will be retained. However, there will be less records in the Network Zone records don’t have minimum requirements for faceting built in.

Discussion

Kit asks about costs and if they differ per approach, but there’s not a significant impact.

Najeeb comments on the impact of work done on decolonizing catalogue and that Humber has created a statement for OPAC.

Sheridan, Centennial and Georgian have completed significant decolonization work on their catalogues.

There will be work for both approaches to be representative of CLO18 holdings after implementation. CUC does put us in a better position to do that work than contribution method approach.

Mary-Margaret raises that Decolonizing College Catalogue Sub-Committee has not made decision on headings and would that impact decision for approach.

Implications for taking on CUC as is that it will be master records, then the college would be taking on the subject headings of that record because 650 is not a local field.

Decision

The subcommittee decides to use CUC as base. Discuss with Decolonize Committee in terms of what can be done to facilitate this work with implementation and record migration.

Network Zone Tags

The subcommittee needs to decide what will be Network Zone fields and what will be local fields. Non-Sirsi colleges need to decision to proceed with Migration and Mapping form

NZ records have certain fields kept for local work that is visible to the specific college using it, but not to other colleges. NZ fields are visible by all.

Ex Libris recommends to use 900-949 for NZ and 950-999 as local fields.

• Humber, Georgian , is using 949 for acquisitions data so they would need to clean up that data

• Sheridan uses 949 for e-Resources, it can be easily moved.

If the number of fields in Network Zone are reduced (e.g., 900-940), it seems worth the reduction to have more fields at a local level as the need for local tags seems greater.

Historical data (e.g. acquisition data) may not be even be moved over,

Decision

The subcommittee accepts recommendation of Ex Libris. If colleges needs support, the PMO can help to arrange for support.

Resources

Alma Migration Considerations for Consortia