Minutes

ERM Implementation Team

2-22-2006

 

Present:Baia, Fong, Helgoth, Jobe, Moeller, Wakimoto

 

The committee met to discuss the CASE.Based on the presentation, the committee had a couple of immediate concerns:monthly updates may not be frequent enough; closedholdings statements combined with monthly updates would render about one-monthís worth of journal articles unfindable by WebBridge at any given point in time; and questions about the match points for bib records.Wakimoto followed up on this last point by e-mail with Ted Fons of III.Because the coverage load matches by ISSN or title, ERM may overwrite existing bib records rather than create new short bibs even if the match point is set to none.This would be problematic.

 

Moeller, who has been exploring CASE since the webex information session, presented a summary of his findings to the group.When he checked both Serials Solutions (SS) and CASE, he found significant differences in the numbers of titles included in several packages.For example:

 

Package name

Publisherís Website

SS

CASE

ABI Inform Global

 

1790

1774

Academic Search Premier

4650

4452

4187

ATLA Religion

 

81

60

Although it is thought that some discrepancies might be accounted for by CASEís monthly update schedule, Moeller wonders if we can feel secure about the accuracy of CASEís title coverage.

 

In theory CASE allows libraries to tailor coverage loads to match their subscriptions via custom rules.Experimenting with Academic Press, Moeller tried to set a rule that would apply to all titles in the list.Unfortunately the holdings statement from 1993 onward was only applied to one title rather than all in the list.

 

To profile a fairly simple package from the American Meteorological Society that contained 8 titles, Moeller had to apply three separate rules.With a large package such as Science Direct, this presents a significant problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also found that the titles in BioOne arenít listed in alphabetical order.

 

 

 

Many significant packages are not listed in CASE.Among the many examples were American Association for Cancer Research and American Geophysical Union.

 

The following bullets summarize the problems that Moeller found with CASE:

 

The committee discussed whether or not, given the problems that it has found, it is worth pursuing CASE.It was the sense of the committee that it may be more worthwhile to continue to fine tune our holdings in Serials Solutions.Itís thought that other libraries have been able to use SS data to create the knowledge base shared by both ERM and WebBridge.After discussion, Fong indicated that sheíll ask for a price quote for MARC records from SS.Wakimoto believes that SSís MARC records contain unique accession records that would enable the Libraries to sidestep the problems created by ERMís matchpoints. It was acknowledged that, no matter what solution is chosen by the Libraries, there will be a lot of cleanup of records.

 

Moeller brought the following problem to the attention of the committee:When we do a coverage load only the COVERAGE option is available.The CATALOG option is not active.Ted described selecting both in order to have the loads run against the collection and add links to our records during the phone conference last week.Could John investigate the authorization for the coverage option to see if Jina and I actually have access to it?

 

The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of the information session to be presented to a joint meeting of Cataloging and Acquisitions.