Bad diacritics in courses

Ex L

College

• Option 1: Correct in Sirsi prior to extract, for Cutover Load; make corrections to diacritics now in Alma, to see the result in Alma and Primo VE
• Option 2: Make corrections to all courses in alma during implementation, and do not reload courses for Cutover. Corrections will be retained, but citations will be lost.
• See discussion at https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/23965261/messages/4555078761
• Note to ExL : La Cité will not migrate Course reserves during Cutover

• Yes
• No

no e-resources created for bibs with URL in 856

College

• Review titles to see if additional bib IDs should be added to the Cutover P2E input list; e.g. bib with Alma MMS ID and Sirsi ID 991000140239707318 with 004/951 of 123315
• See discussion at https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/23965261/messages/4555991161#__recording_4565374433
• Note to ExL : No action needed on this.

• Yes
• No

bad diacritics in patron extracts

College /OCLS staff doing data extracts

• see https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/23965261/messages/4580673174
• OCLS: extract patrons from Sirsi in UTF-8 format
• College: review extracts before submitting for migration
• Note to ExL : When we do the patron extract again from SIRSI, I will be expecting to see bad diacritics for older records. At Go-live, we will import only active patrons from SIS to Alma. The diacritics seem to be ok (currently being tested). NO ACTION needed.

• Yes
• No

Want to define Preferred Address as “Home” only - not “All”

Needs to be updated on the cutover field mapping form

This is what I see on the mapping form : is this correct ?

• Yes
• No

do not map patron barcode at CO ?

https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/23965261/messages/4755322512#__recording_4760295405

Action: TBD

Andrea to do.

From Andrea(5/5): LLacel , based on your final comment in the basecamp thread noted above, I will leave USER_ID mapped to Barcode.

• Yes
• No

retain ledgers and funds for CO

https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/23965261/messages/4794251757

• ExL: indicate this on La Cite’s CO survey. DONE.

• Yes
• No

course reserve unit mapping

ExL

• Ensure migration form preferences are honored
• We had 2 course reserve unit at migration. Jessica “merged” the 2. The Processing Department is now called La Cité Course Reserves. We would like to keep that name at CO.

From Andrea (5/5): LLacel , since you are not migrating courses at Cutover, this does not matter for you.

• Yes
• No

preferred name mapping

ExL

• Amend CO form to remove mapping of Sirsi USER_NAME as preferred name

• Yes
• No

• SERC_TITLE_KEY
• SISAC_ID
• OTHER:
• I do need to identify specific parameters for SERC_TITLE_KEY or OTHER as described in the Backgrounder (OCLS and Ex Libris will follow up with you)

From Andrea (5/5): Done.

• Map nothing (items inherit material types from bibs)
• Map to same field as item type (usually Sirsi 999$t)
• Map to 999$x

From Andrea (5/5): Done.

• Courses & Reading List Headers
• Ledgers and Funds
• Licenses
• COUNTER data

From Andrea (5/5): Noted

PQIS Activations

• I want PQIS at Cutover
• I do NOT want PQIS at Cutover

Ebook Central Integration (Ebook Central Perpetual, DDA and Subscription)

• I want E-Book Central Pro Integration (EBC) run at Cutover
• I do NOT want EBC at Cutover

From Andrea (5/5): Noted

• Yes
• No

From Andrea (5/5): Noted

• Yes
• No

From Andrea (5/5): Noted

• Bib Records (Shadowed)
• Bib Records (Unshadowed)
• Course/Reserves
• Patrons
• Fines and Fees/Active Bills
• Active Loans

• Requests/Available Holds
• Serial Control
• Issue
• Funds
• Orders (>2011)
• Invoices (>2011)

• E-resource Activation Form
• P2E

Bibliographic Records (Shadowed records)

Exclude bib records that contain certain MARC fields such as 996=Proquest, or 856=www.nfb.ca

Do you want Multi-volume custom script?

Background information

• Yes
• No

Reviewed SB 5/10

Bibliographic Records (unshadowed records)

Exclude bib records that contain certain MARC fields such as 996=Proquest, or 856=www.nfb.ca

Reviewed SB 5/10

Courses/Reserves

Exclude Item Type=LAPTOP (Laptops or other equipment items can be put into another location in Alma.)

We are not migrating Course reserves at CO

Reviewed SB 5/10

Patrons

Exclude User Profile=ADMIN

Reviewed SB 5/10

Fines and Fees/Active Bills

Exclude Bill Reason=PROCESSFEE

Reviewed SB 5/10

Active Loans

Exclude all loans for the the pseudo user=MISSING

Reviewed SB 5/10

Requests/Available Holds

Not applicable

Reviewed SB 5/10

Serial Control

Exclude Serial Control Created > , or < DATE

Reviewed SB 5/10

Issue

Exclude Issue Created > , or < DATE

Reviewed SB 5/10

Funds

Exclude Funds Created > , or < DATE

Not provided for test load.

Orders (>2011)

Exclude Closed Orders

Not provided for test load.

Invoices (>2011)

Exclude Invoices Created > , or < DATE

Not provided for test load.

Publications du gouvernement du Canada

856=https://www.publications.gc.ca

Portfolio (these titles are e-portfolios) They should all be under that collection.

Cantook

996=Archambault

Portfolio (these titles are e-books/portfolios. Part of the Cantook e-books collection.

Note to Jennifer : 2 important notes :

In Alma, from test load, these portfolios are identified as book-electronic (which is fine). Right now, when clicking on the holdings (electronic (1) ) the collection name is always the title of the book. This seems ok but shouldn’t it be the collection title Cantook (or I think I had put Archambault in my original P2E) ?

Also, in Primo, these e-books are identified as Database. This does not make sense to me. I know Primo codes differently it seems, but these are identified as e-books in Alma. They are part of a collection (Cantook). We don’t subscribe to the whole database (basically Cantook is the interface where the books are housed). We buy a certain number of the e-books - it’s kind of a selective package. Not a database. I don’t understand why every e-books show as Database.

Add additional Rows as necessary