ERM Committee Meeting

5-3-2006

 

Present:  Baia, Callahan, Culshaw, Fong, Graber, Helgoth, Jobe, Wakimoto, Wicht

 

The committee considered questions posed by Helgoth on 5-2-2006.

 

Question:  Should we use the database title listed in Serials Solutions (SS) or the 245 field from the bib record?

Decision:  Use the 245 from the bib.  Augment as needed with alternate resource names. 

 

Question:  Should we create one resource record for databases with several different packages listed in Serials Solutions.  Examples:  ACM, JSTOR, AIAA

Wakimoto reported that the coverage load group had discovered that inserting a colon between the database name and any one of its parts made it possible to do multiple coverage loads with one resource record.   Example:  Journal of Ecology 

 

 

Jobe also pointed out that multiple resource records were confusing in the resource title search (http://libraries.colorado.edu/search/y).  Example:  AIAA (3 resource records that with 5 brief entries in the title display).

 

 

Decision:  Create one resource record. 

 

Question:  Should the workflow group skip resources that don’t have a bib record? 
Jobe presented recommendations (below) from the public display group that were relevant to this discussion.

Decision:  Create skeleton resource records for all titles whether or not there’s a corresponding bib record.  Cataloging can revise as appropriate when it gets to its portion of the work.  Baia recommended that cataloging check all bib records against the site and revise as necessary.

 

Question:  Use a fixed field to record completeness. 

Decision:  Although this sounds like a useful feature, the working subgroup should bring a complete proposal to the group for discussion.  Wakimoto intends to bring a proposal to the group to use both fixed and variable length fields to denote cataloging status.  We may wish to consider status of coverage loads, completeness of license and contact records, and other various issues. 

 

Recommendations from the public display working group.

 

  • Use resource records to populate the A-Z and subject lists.  ERM includes two indexes (y-Resource Name and Alternate Resource Name and m-Local Subjects) for resource records that facilitate creation of the A-Z and subject lists.  Examination of Ohio State’s page indicates that Alternate resource names are also indexed in the y index.
  • Use bibliographic records as the point of access in Chinook.  As needed create brief bib records for resources that lack a complete bib record in OCLC. 
  • Display selected information from the resource and license records by attaching them to the bib record.  See University of Washington for an implementation favored by the group. 
  • Do not add Resource name, Alternate resource name, or Resource author to Chinook’s author, title, or keyword indices to eliminate appearance of both resource and bib records in the catalog.

 

These recommendations were endorsed by the group.

 

Wakimoto reported that she received a sample of 500 records from Serials Solutions (SS). They haven’t been loaded into Chinook.  Profiling for SS is complete.  Culshaw agreed to check with Innovative to see if a custom loader for SS records is available.  Records should be coded to facilitate deletion at a later date.

 

Wakimoto reminded everyone that the ERM committee now has Sharepoint site at

http://norcount/LibSharePoint/LibERM/default.aspx  Culshaw will link to the site on the ERM website.  Working groups are encouraged to post working documents, spreadsheets, and other information to the site.  Make sure to include dates in document file names.