Minutes

ERM Implementation Team

8-8-2005

 

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

 

  • Wicht reported that she was unable to find a good discussion of the whether or not it is desirable to create both a bib record and a resource record for most resources.    Since CU’s practice has been to catalog all resources, for the time being, CU will continue to create resource records that duplicate much of the information contained in the bibliographic record.  The bibliographic records have authority control features lacking in the resource records.  The committee will ask Wakimoto for advice and comments when she assumes her post in October.
  • The committee discussed the CASE product that is being offered by III.  In order to obtain pricing, Culshaw needs data on our e-resources.  Wicht agreed to generate a summary using information submitted to Serials Solutions.  Culshaw will follow up with III.  It may be easier to soft-link holdings in ERM and to build the knowledge base needed by WebBridge using a III product.  Product literature indicates that CASE can create bib records for titles from aggregator databases. 
  • Culshaw may start working on WebBridge. 
  • The committee briefly reviewed recent posts to the ERM listserv.  Based on these posts, it appears that you can’t transfer an order record from a bib record to a resource record. 
  • The committee decided to rename field 211 in the Fixed Fields for Resource Records from DATA PROVIDER to COVERAGE LOAD.  Culshaw agreed to make the change.
  • Although we aren’t ready to write rules for the creation of contact codes, Wicht observed that contact codes will usually be the first five characters of the contact name unless something else is more intuitive.  For example, muse rather than proje for Project Muse.
  • General discussion about when to include information about administration and statistics in either the resource record or the contact record.  Some ERM list postings suggest using the contact record if multiple resources use the same information. Fong will ask U. of Washington how they handle this issue when she visits.
  • The committee discussed view and edit authorizations for various fields in the resource and contact records.  The committee agreed that :
    • For the Administration field (m) (Variable length field in resource records):—viewing and editing should be restricted to 202 authorizations.
    • For the Usage statistics field (l)(Variable length field in resource records)—editing should be restricted to 202 authorizations.  Viewable by others.  If the URL, logins, and passwords for administration and usage statistics are identical as in the case of Metapress, perhaps a solution would be to leave the usage statistics field blank.
  • The committee will not meet on August 15.  A subset of the committee may meet on August 22 (Fong, Jobe, and Baia out of town on that date).  Although Culshaw won’t be available, the rest of the committee agreed to meet on August 29th.

 

Example of a resource record with linked contact information:

 

 

 

Example of a contact record: