ERM Implementation Team



Present:  Baia, Culshaw, Fong, Helgoth, Jobe,



  • Work on the fixed fields is complete for the time being.  Some decisions on fixed fields have been deferred until we work on contact records.
  • Discussion that we may need to “lose” the concept of the bib record.  Although we may have both bib records and resource records for some resources because of historic practices, workflow considerations may favor creation of resource records rather than bib records at some point in the future.  The resource record can be described as a hybrid record format that draws some of its information from cataloging practice and some of its information from acquisitions practice.  As a result the resource record is more robust record type for e-resources than the bib record.  The diagram on the relationships between ERM and bib records illustrate that two different workflows are involved.  Jina Wakimoto, the incoming head of cataloging, might have insight into how workflow might be adjusted because of her experience with oversight for both cataloging and acquisitions. 
  • Baia recommended reading “Integrating and Streamlining Electronic Resources…” by Laura Tull et al.  Now available at http://tinyurl.com/axxrf  Reading of this article and examining resource and bib records from Ohio State have provided the committee with a better understanding of the factors which drive decisions on the variable fields.  If resource records replace bib records, the implications for the catalog require careful thought.  With this in mind the committee resumed work on the variable-length fields.  It plans to work through CSU’s list item-by-item.
  • Ohio State catalog and readings confirm that the A-Z and subject lists only pull from the resource records.  Individual holdings can be attached to the resource records.   
  • Culshaw will follow up with Innovative on Multi-value Variable-length Field Values (page 105865 in the manual).  The multi-value variable length fields allow a library to create lists of values in some fields of the resource and license records to speed entry and to provide consistency.  Example:  Resource Type.
  • Fong will follow up on ARL metrics.  This has implications for the values entered in the Resource Type, a variable length field.  Culshaw will-set up a drop-down with a list of values that the committee recommends.
  • The issue of LC subject headings illustrates the need to modify existing workflows.  Page 105852 appears to state that it’s possible to verify subject headings from directly from the resource record without reference to a corresponding bib record.