Overview

From SharedBib

Jump to: navigation, search

Elluminate Recording of the Training Session that covered the information on this page.

Contents

What will be different in the Shared Bib Environment?

Background

  • Project status
    • Not ready for testing
      • Data Loading
      • Scheduled notices, reports and other jobs that run on a regular schedule (joblists)
      • Course Reserves
  • Upcoming Training

Differences

  • Aleph Architecture changes
  • Conceptual change about bib and authority record ownership
    • No ownership of bibs.
    • SUL association with a Bib is via HOL or Items
  • Important distinction between sharing/not sharing
    • patrons example of both; everything that stays the same is shared; privileges; local i.d. numbers not shared
    • Bib. and Auth. records shared, HOL file shared
    • Permissions shared
    • ADM records not shared: circ, acq., local reserves
  • Goal is to not have duplicate bib. records
  • Shared configuration tables in Bib. and HOL files may mean joint decision making on settings
  • Combined bib records
    • Bigger records, i.e. longer records
    • Some tags marked as shared, some local ($5)
    • All SULs can edit all bib. records
    • More records
  • Merged HOLdings file
    • More records
      • see all HOLs, can edit only yours
  • Merged Local Authority file
    • See all records
    • See other libraries practices
    • Linking is only to LC and MeSH Resource files, not local authority file
  • Different Aleph numbers: transition process includes renumbering some, relinking everything
  • At each library
  • A lot of work in Aleph doesn't change, examples:
    • Serials check-in
    • All Acq. budget activities
    • Managing vendors
    • EDI invoice loads
    • Circulation:charging, renewing, returning, fining, etc.
  • Visible changes in the Aleph client
    • Searching
      • Default is full set of Bib records (UXU01); option to search local base
      • Default is full set of HOL records, need to limit by sublibrary
    • Navigation Trees
      • Example: Bib and HOLs
    • Combined Bib record
    • Some drop down of options may contain all SUL lists (in shared libraries, BIB and HOL) Example
  • Batch Bib. Data Loading:
    • Consider the combined workflow of the SULs
    • Some centralized loading by FCLA/FVC
    • Coordination of future loads
  • Task Manager services will share one processing queue
    • For example global changes will be processed one at a time across all SULs
  • Permissions
    • Existing permissions have been merged together into one file, adapted by FCLA during transition
    • Duplicate user names made unique
    • New permission set up can still be done by authorized SUL staff
  • Mango
    • Little impact on users; look the same
    • Local catalogs continue as is
    • Union or UBorrow catalog continues as is
    • Bib. ownership changes impact what shows in Mango in local catalog
    • Permalinks will continue to work
  • UBorrow
    • No visible change to users
    • Changes to codes in AlephILL client
  • Reports:
    • Aleph or Arrow reports that include Bib info. will change, others might

Transition tasks

  • FCLA is responsible for all FCLA provided services such as:
    • Exports to bursar
    • No change for accounts payable (APFeed)
    • Patron loads
    • 3M self check connections
    • Custom services like interaction with the ALF system for UF Storage
    • Discovery Tools extracts
  • Libraries are responsible for local initiatives such as:
    • Interactions between Discovery Tools (other than Mango) and Mango
    • Macros (MacroExpress)
    • Locally created reports based on Oracle access
    • Other locally created scripts in Aleph (USF only)
    • Preprocessing manipulation of metadata files (FIU's crosswalk)
    • others?
Personal tools