ERM Minutes



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


  • The group welcomed Callahan to the committee.
  • Culshaw observed that because ERM records are in the system, they do not need to be loaded onto the staging server (  In order to explore public display issues, Callahan needs to work on the both the wwwoptions and webpubdef files which operate in tandem.  To date CU-B has not used a webpubdef file.  Callahan noted that there’s a steep learning curve associated with the webpubdef file because configuration is almost like programming.  After she returns to work, she hopes to work with Jennifer at CSU.
  • Culshaw and Callahan previewed a change that they will propose.  Currently the link in the 856 field is prefaced with Click on the following to.  They suggested Available online as alternate wording for this area in the Chinook record.
  • Wakimoto and Moeller updated the committee on their progress with coverage loads.  Because of the single record approach, they encountered significant problems in the coverage loads.  Wakimoto provided the committee with notes shown in the box below.



Q – Match points set to none/none – still matches on ISSN then title (anything in T field group?? – has to be exact match on title); if no match, creates brief bib record

Ex: Journal of insect science (.b38061429) and Arabidopsis book (.b35756743)


Q – Where does the public display in holdings come from?  In JSTOR, note comes from field.  BioOne does not have Public Note field, but created the public display in holdings.  Self-created one is nice.


Comment - Public Note (F) field is a link to text, so we cannot use this field for other notes, e.g., number of simultaneous users, etc.


Comment – Resource record must have Resource ID field (P) filled in to match for coverage load (case-sensitive).  We entered BioOne to have the coverage data to load.  Paul and I can add this to match the one in the coverage data file.


Comment – our practice of latest entry record is problematic.  Example: African American review – 3 ISSNs and 3 titles – matched on the first ISSN, ignored the other 2.  In this case, the first ISSN matches the correct title, so the correct holdings display.  If our record does not have the correct ISSN to the corresponding title, it would create incorrect holdings display.  [China journal]


Paul’s coverage load of Project Muse titles (300 in total)

1 – we had wrong ISSN

1 – we linked Project Muse on wrong title

3 – Premium collection we don’t have subscription

27 – ISSN problem

6 – dropped off



·        After discussion, the task force endorsed the idea of separate records for print and electronic journals.  The current practice has been to combine holdings for all formats into one record.  The most feasible way of accomplishing this is to purchase MARC records from Serials Solutions (SS). COG, which has oversight on this issue, has also endorsed the recommendation.  The rep from Serials Solutions will be able to meet with the committee next week to answer questions.  The meeting will start at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 22.  

·        The committee looked at a SS MARC record for Journal of Academic Librarianship from the catalog of the University of Miami (  Because of potential inaccuracies within the holdings statements, Wakimoto suggested that we should consider linking to the E-Journal Finder rather than to holdings statements.  The inaccuracy of the holdings statements will vary with the frequency of the loads of MARC records.  Images of the brief display and bib record are shown below.  Northridge, which recently started loading SS MARC records found a mix of approximately 75% complete records and 25% brief bibs.







·        Members of the task force agreed to attend the PS Department Heads meeting on April 11 at 9:00 am in N410 in order to answer any questions that might arise with respect to the separate record recommendation.  Wakimoto will draft a set of talking points for distribution to the committee.

·        Wakimoto and Moeller wondered if the display of an additional checkin record generated by coverage loads is confusing for patrons.  At the present time, 400 titles are linked to the JSTOR, BioOne, and Project Muse resource records.  Helgoth will suppress the resource records to eliminate the potentially confusing display of an additional checkin record. 

·        Because we have decided to load SS MARC records, we will continue to use SS rather than CASE.  Culshaw and Fong will cancel the service.

·        Questions about resource vs. bib records remain. Baia completed her review of the resource records completed by Linda, adding alternate resource names and authors and updating description as needed. She stressed the importance of deciding on the public display of resource record fields and indexing before adding too much information to resource records that may unnecessarily duplicate information in bib records that requires updating in both records. As part of her review, she re-searched the catalogs of libraries listed in the document, "Public Display in ERM Libraries", and found many changes had occurred, including 2 libraries where a title search now retrieved only a resource record and not also a bib record for several titles searched. At the present time, resource records are not indexed in Chinook.  Wakimoto favors indexing in a resource name field rather than title field.  Culshaw wonders what the effect on Prospector and resource sharing would be if we used ERM to manage government publications and other resources.  III’s INNReach system matches on bib record.  Wakimoto will take this issue to the Prospector committee. 

·        Until we get a chance to explore public display issues on the staging server, the committee agreed to suspend work on coverage loads.  Helgoth will continue to create resource records for trials.  Although many issues remain unresolved, we can also continue to work on resource records. 

·        Discussion of issues associated with the AIAA electronic library and JSTOR collections will continue at a later date.