ERM Minutes—2nd Revision

9/6/2006

 

Present:  Baia, Callahan, Culshaw, Fong, Graber, Helgoth, Holladay, Jobe, Lamboy, Moeller, Wakimoto

 

After review, the group asked Culshaw to proceed with the indexing changes proposed for Chinook by the Public Display Group (report of 8/2/2006).

 

Field

Tag

Subfields

Index

 

RESOURCE (t)

non-MARC

 

RESOURCE NAME (y)

 

RESOURCE (t)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

add

RESOURCE (t)

non-MARC

 

TITLE (t)

add

ALTRESRC (x)

non-MARC

 

RESOURCE NAME (y)

 

ALTRESRC (x)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

add

ALTRESRC (x)

non-MARC

 

TITLE (t)

add

RESRCEID (p)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

 

LC SUBJECT (d)

650

KEEP ALL

Other (d)

remove

LOCAL SUBJECT (q)

non-MARC

 

LOCAL SUBJECT (j)

add

LOCAL SUBJECT (q)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

add

RESOURCE AUTHOR (a)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

add

RESOURCE AUTHOR (a)

non-MARC

 

AUTHOR (a)

add

DESCRIPTION (e)

non-MARC

 

KEYWORD (x)

add

 

 

 

 

 

key:

 

 

 

 

current configuration

 

 

 

 

check with Innovative on current config

 

 

 

 

unshaded = add to indexing

 

 

 

 

 

Culshaw clarified that Chinook no longer uses the “w” index for keyword searches.  The library uses the “x” (AVS) search for keywords.

 

Wakimoto updated the group about the Serials Solutions (SS) coverage loads. Although the MARC records were delivered to the Libraries' specifications, she has been unable to obtain the brief records in an acceptable format. She just recently received a spreadsheet from SS that includes:  the SS control number, title, issn, provider, URL, and dates of coverage.  Information from this file will be used to do coverage loads.  As the loads are done work on the III configuration service can proceed.  Wakimoto and Moeller should have a better idea of workflow issues once they've gone through the process of loading full and brief records and processing a monthly update.

 

Because of coverage loads, an icon (About Resource) that links to resource records have started to appear on the live server from bib records (Example:  Communication Research).  As long as the public can access a resource, the group didn’t believe this would be confusing for the public.  Now that some resource records will be available on the live server, Callahan will apply the wwwoptions and webpubdef settings recommended by the Public Display Group to the live server.

 

Confusion about inconsistencies between the MARC records and holdings information in the E-Journal Finder generated considerable discussion.  Moeller observed that we will probably always have some inconsistencies caused by different data formats supplied to SS by the publishers.  Other differences occur because of the frequency of updates to the E-Journal Finder and to the MARC records (Example:  Ecology). The E-Journal Finder is updated on a daily basis.  The updates reflect information supplied either by the publisher and any changes made in the SS Client Center by the Libraries.  While work on big packages is more or less complete, Acquisitions is currently turning on access to “orphans” in the Client Center.   Although Cataloging and Metadata has yet to establish a workflow for updating SS records, it is anticipated that would probably happen on a monthly basis.  Thus a change that’s available in the E Journal Finder within 24 hours won’t be made to the MARC records until the next monthly update is processed.   Baia, Moeller, and Wakimoto plan to communicate this information to the Norlin list. 

 

Graber raised questions about searching by Periodical Title.  Patrons are confused by the separate record approach because they can no longer search by Periodical Title to find the e-journal.  To find the e-journal, search Chinook by Title.  For one word titles like Science or Nature, adding “Online” to the title to pull up the online edition.  The periodical title index is generated from 222 fields in serial bib records from OCLC, SS and other sources and 229 fields that are added locally. Because no SS brief records include a 222, and no SS records of any kind are supplied with alternative titles for the Periodical Title index (229 fields), a Periodical Title search may often give no results when we actually have SS records for these e-journals. The problem could be solved by scoping for the bib level because periodical titles have an “s” in the bib level.  Although there would be small changes, the differences between the current periodical title search and the scoped search would probably not confuse users.  For sophisticated users, the scoping feature would provide additional search methods in the pull down menu.  See “Internet Resources Only” to get an idea of how this might look.  The group hopes that COG will approve and implement this change quickly.  

 

Fong raised a question about separate records for different collections from providers such as JSTOR. Before we can turn on a new collection, the University needs to sign an addendum to the existing contracts.  Because a considerable portion of a resource record contains date information, the Libraries probably needs to create a unique resource record for each package in order to manage the date information.  In addition, usage statistics are often available at the collection level.  One option is to suppress records that are needed for management purposes only from public view.   The other option is to establish criteria for public display of selected resources at the collection level.  Fong, Holladay, and Wicht will forward draft criteria on when to create multiple resource records to the group for discussion at its next meeting.  Helgoth and Lamboy will create separate records for JSTOR collections so that the group can consider public display issues.  Moeller believes that the choice of single or multiple resource records won’t impact coverage loads for ERM or WebBridge.  To test this theory, Helgoth and Lamboy also agreed to flesh out the records for the 10 resources selected as “targets” for III’s WebBridge configuration service. 

 

Wakimoto raised the issue of using ERM to manage information on cataloging of monographic materials that include MARC records (Examples:  SPIE proceedings, Knovel).  Baia will forward recommendations on the use of fixed and variable length fields for this purpose. 

 

It was noted that we will need to suppress or delete records solely for the purpose of experimentation before we go live to the public.  We will also need to make select resource or bib records for suppression before we go live.  (See Summary of Public Display Group’s Progress, updated 8/2/2006 for a discussion of the issues.)

 

The group agreed that we should ask Culshaw to change to following field labels in ERM as soon as possible.  Jobe will update the documentation.

 

Labels to change:

 

·        Resource Name (t)—Relabel Database Title

 

·        Alternate Resource Name (x) —Relabel Other Title 

 

·        Local Subject (q)—Relabel General Subject

 

·        Mode of Access (b)—Relabel Notes 

 

·        Notes (n)—Relabel Internal Notes

 

 

On the agenda for the next meeting:

 

1)      Discussion of single/multiple record guidelines

2)      WebBridge Update

3)      Discussion of recommendations to use ERM to track cataloging status for monographic materials.