Polaris Cataloging User Group - August 29, 2019

Polaris Cataloging Group August 29, 2019

Agenda

1. Tasks discussed --
   1. Finalize Collection Names (due date: 9/20 so would like to have final document prepared by 9/12) – review collection name (especially for your library) and consider name, format, uniqueness. Goal: concise, focused, and standardized list of collection names across our libraries. There was not a lot of feedback from last week but suggestions were included in the revised spreadsheet and shared right before the meeting. Changes discussed during the meeting were incorporated and can be found in attached spreadsheet. Column was also added prior to the individual libraries to indicate how many libraries are using that collection. Please review before meeting and send in any comments/suggesting prior to 9/4 so I can incorporate for discussion at next meeting.
   2. 590 discussion/information on bib field retention/deletion – Also attached is the working copy of the Bibliographic Field Retention/Deletion document that was submitted to Polaris prior to the first test extract. We need to revisit and verify as now we understand if a tag is retained or deleted it will be for ALL the libraries. We can clean up the ALEPH database prior to the next extract (9/13). The 590 fields can be mapped so the library name is in the subfield z so we will be able to see which library had the local note. Please review and send me your thoughts on how to handle for your library.
2. Migration Topics – Discussed 8/22 but did not have time to update 8/29
   1. Call numbers – subfield labels were displaying in Availability (example: $$kAB$hROW and $$hPZ7.R79835$$iHar 1999b) – REPORTED TO POLARIS requesting subfield labels not be displayed in PAC – STATUS: READY -- need your feedback – is it fixed?
   2. Call numbers – some are blank – due to no HOL record or improper format Call No info in item record (usually no subfield codes) – lists were sent to affected libraries requesting cleanup. STATUS: how is cleanup progressing? Has it been completed?
   3. Description field from ALEPH was not being displayed – if enum/chrono is present, information will map to Volume field in Polaris. If it is not present, description will map to PhysicalCondition – REPORTED TO POLARIS for data correction – STATUS: READY – need your feedback – do things look better now?
   4. Internal Note from ALEPH was not being displayed – field will be mapped to Non-PublicNote in Polaris – REPORTED TO POLARIS – STATUS: READY – are things better now?
   5. Diacritics did not come over correctly (example Shari Lapeña) –This also caused issues with copyright symbol display. STATUS: REPORTED TO POLARIS and solution will be applied to the next data extract.
   6. Overdrive record/eBooks – Kristen’s email on 8/15 – currently a handful of libraries have records loaded locally from Overdrive. The Overdrive topic is on Agenda for future discussion. STATUS: pending – should have more information in a few weeks.
   7. Authorities – ZMARC currently on system for evaluation. Information regarding authorities was sent to Kristen for review and testing. We have also requested a web session to walk through the authorities process. Ann said it should be about 30 minutes. STATUS: pending tests – web session scheduled for 9/5 11 am – invite has been sent.
   8. Noncirculating collections – have been identified. REPORTED TO POLARIS – STATUS: READY??
   9. Grouping/Matching records – specifically OCLC numbers – need to investigate further. Provide very specific examples so they can be evaluated by Ann’s team. Conference call may be needed at a different date but need the examples and writeup before we get to that point. Have started to report specific examples for Polaris review -- STATUS: in progress and still gathering examples
3. Future discussion topics – as time allows
   1. 035 $z – should that be moved to 019 – Kristen to supply more info.
   2. 100 $e author – consistent treatment policies – Kristen -- TD10247333
   3. Format displays – example: two different libraries have same audiobook on CD – but because they are coded differently in the LDR, they show different formats in the public view. TD10454866.
   4. For titles with both hardcover and paperback editions, should that be on one record or two? TD10425354
   5. Material type on 655 and sometimes 650 fields of many records from OCLC. Should this be stripped out of Polaris records to avoid duplicate information? TD10422161
   6. Tag 776 – should it be removed? display for ebook vs print; 776 vs 520 TD1042460, 10455958, 10454275