ERM Implementation Team
Culshaw, Fong, Helgoth, Jobe, 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.
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.
may start working on WebBridge.
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
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.
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
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 :
the Administration field (m) (Variable length field in resource
records):—viewing and editing should be restricted to 202 authorizations.
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.
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