Minutes

ERM Implementation Team

8-30-2005

 

Present:  Baia, Fong, Helgoth, Jobe, Wicht

 

  • The ERM list has been very active lately.  A lot of the discussion centered on the use of subjects for resource records.  The approaches discussed can be categorized as:  importing 650 fields from bib records, using an existing subject list such as the pull-down menu available in CU’s “Find Articles & More”, and matching subjects to the curriculum.  In a post dated 8/23/2005, Ann Flynn (University of Technology, Sydney http://www.lib.uts.edu.au/) reports that they are migrating “subject fields across from the 65x fields in the bib records….the subject fields in the bib records are mapped to the subject field in the resource records.”  It wasn’t possible to view the impact of this on the catalog, since it appears that resource records are only accessible through a portal that requires a user login and password.  The committee wondered if documentation on mapping fields in bib records to resource records is available in the ERM documentation. 
  • Wicht entered about 10 contact records.  Each one took about 10-15 minutes.  She used the first five letters of the name as the code unless something else was more intuititive.  Example “muse” for Project Muse rather than “proje”
  • New York University is adding “primary source” to the content type in resource records. This is something that CU considered as well.  The committee’s preliminary decision was to add “Primary Sources” to the list of local subject headings.
  • The committee noticed that the Subject variable length field, designated for LC subject headings, had been changed to a multi-value, variable length field for local subjects.  Jobe agreed to check with Culshaw.  In a follow-up, Culshaw stated that, “I've written to the person who had the call asking to create a NEW multi-value field for local subject (which I'll populate with the list) and then the existing d field should be renamed LC Subject.” 
  • Fong reported on her conversations with the library at the U. of  Washington: Because the library coordinates purchases for the entire system, their records are very complex.  Washington usually puts the contact URL rather than product URL in contact records. Because Washington was a development partner for ERM, they are very actively customizing for their own purposes.  In order to avoid excess work, they are only inserting data into records as absolutely necessary.  The library limits view and edit access to the contact records to a very small pool of people.  They don’t want to replace bib records with resource records.   
  • Wicht posed a question for the group.  How would we handle three simultaneous trials for the same product from three different vendors.  Example she used is RILM.
  • Wicht tested a tickler for Academic Search Premier.  Jobe and Wicht received the tickler on time.  Screen shots from ERM and e-mail are shown below.