ERM Implementation Team
Present: Baia, Fong,
Helgoth, Jobe, Wicht
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,
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
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
- 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.