ERM Taskforce Meeting: October 4, 2006, 12:30 pm in Rm N410


Peggy set the agenda to include discussion of the ERM Q & A session focusing on implications for public display (live server) created by loading Serial Solutions (SS) coverage loads, and discuss Michigan State University Libraries display as possible model for CU.


Issues from ERM Q & A session


Paul will finish the SS coverage load tomorrow, which will allow us to asses the total impact on the live server.  He has been using two giant spreadsheets one with the brief records and one with the full bib records from SS.  He subdivides the records and loads them one package at a time.  He is checking the SS Resource ID number making sure that it matches the database Resource ID.  The plan is to use ID number supplied by SS unless there is a problem.  A few records from Business Source Premier appear to be linking to the inappropriate bib record he will look into the original data to track down the problem.  Paul will let the taskforce know when the coverage load is complete so the impact on the live server can be assessed.  Paul proposed a solution about the SS coverage load and 856 displays (See below).


Coverage load Display: Paul’s proposal


Here is my current thinking on how coverage loads will work:


Each month a coverage load will be received from Serials Solutions.  The load will be separated into a file for titles with full SS MARC records, and a file for titles with brief SS records.  The coverage load of each of these files will then be done. 


This work will be coordinated with the loading of MARC records from Serials Solutions.  Each month we will receive files of New Records, Deleted Records, Changed Records, and Brief Records from Serials Solutions.  The full records from Serials Solutions we have already loaded into Chinook will only be deleted or overlaid as necessary.  All brief records will all be removed and new brief records added each month.  Many of the full records in our catalog have not changed since they were loaded in June.  This is why some of the holdings information under Available Online at the top of Chinook records is now incorrect.  For example a link may read: Full text available from ScienceDirect Journals: 1989 to May 2006   when E-Journal Finder says we actually have access to the journal through Sept. 2006.  The holdings information currently displaying at the top of our e-journal records is coming from the 856s in Bib records.  Holdings information from coverage loads can be displayed through checkin records and this information will be updated monthly. 


Once we have a complete coverage load and a satisfactory display of information in the checkin records, the 856s in the records provided by Serials Solutions should be suppressed.  Access to holdings info and active links to titles will be provided only through checkin records.  Michigan State is using this approach and I believe the resulting display is attractive and easily understood.  


Usability studies were suggested to gather data on how users actually interact with Chinook as we consider changes to the public display.  Heather brought up the assessment committees discussions about gathering usability data and the possibility of using students from Clara Sitter’s classes at DU as part of a practicum.  Peggy mentioned the need to go through a Human Subjects review as part of this process.  Jina discussed the broader assessment issues for Chinook and the library website beyond just ERM implementation.  The taskforce was unaware of any usability data on the website or Chinook.  Heather will take these issues to the Assessment committee to explore ways to begin usability testing.   


A dynamically sorting Find Articles and More will help manage the increasing numbers of electronic resources however; we do not want to lose the instructional information currently provided to help users use through the databases.  Peggy demonstrated the impact the changing the “*” to a “1” in front of the History subject guide Resource record title to force it to the first position when doing a Find Articles and More subject based search.   A Resource record with a uniform title would be created for specific subject guides to direct users to additional information.  The issue assigning subject headings to databases was discussed including the possibility of being more selective as a way to produce lists that are smaller and more focused.  Re-examining the subject headings currently in use was mentioned since they have not been looked at for a number of years.  Candy will work with Bibliographers to determine which subjects connect to which databases. 


Managing free journals that lack resource records was discussed.  There is no standardized process for dealing with this type of e-resource.  Should they be grouped together or be given individual resource records?  Free ones that turned on in SS now have bib records.  Is that enough?  How will this impact WebBridge?  Does WebBridge require a coverage load to function properly?  There are possible enhancements in Chinook that could deal with this type of resource.  Some freebies have open URLs and DOI and some do not.  The decision was made to load freebie records at a later date when more is known about possible options and their implications.  Freebie bib records will not have the 856 field flipped for the time being.


Candy was curious if notes she added to SS were appearing on the SS bib records.  She will check out specific examples to see what is happening.  Possible solution to getting the notes to display is to add a column on Paul’s coverage load spread sheets that would include the notes.  This column is not currently included in the SS spreadsheets.


Candy brought up the issue of the notes added to ERM titles (See below).


Candy’s proposal

I find the [full text] and other [comments] on resource records to be more obfuscating than clarifying.  Can we not move such information to, say,

“v” Resource Type or some other identifying place than TITLES?    I feel this information is more for our internal edification than for patrons’ use.

[I am assuming that the “v” displays to the public.]


See first screen shot. 


I am looking at the many CSA databases. 

“CSA Illumina” is marked as a [citation database], which isn’t exactly true.   All the Sage Full Text (eg: “Communication studies: a SAGE full-text collection” which is on the CSA Illumina [citation database] platform) databases are, as suggested within their titles, full-text, while others, such as BioOne, are truly indexes and abstracts citation databases.    It not only looks silly to say “Communication studies: a SAGE full-text collection [full text]”, but in the context of the platform, looks ridiculous to say CSA Illumina [citation database] Communication studies: a SAGE full-text collection [full text].   


See second screen shot, from CSA Illumina’s main page (where our URL connects users).


To further complicate the matter, many of these have active links right there on the CSA platform that DO connect us to full-text (see BioOne again!  It’s a citation database on the CSA platform, but the link for full-text is RIGHT THERE).  Do the users REALLY need to be confused as to why we call it a citation database when it has full-text all over?  They don’t know that we have WebBridge, or interconnected websites that seamlessly allow full-text linkage, or that we pay for something here and it’s available here for free because the vendor knows we pay for it over there?


I would like to move information about whether a resource if full-text or citation or whatever to an identifying label OTHER than title.



The following screen shot from staging server gives us a glimpse of what this will look like when the live server is running in the WebPacPro environment.  Since the descriptions and brackets both display, the information in the brackets is less confusing.  For example, Academic Search Premier includes both [full text] and [citation database].  The description clarifies the information included in the title field. 




Discussion focused on the need for some information about the database which could be provided through the WebPac Pro version of the display.  One suggestion was to not include a description, such as “full text” if that was part of the database name.  Ways to have the brackets display on the public display were also discussed.


Next full committee meeting will be the first week in November.  The possibility of an earlier meeting was discussed however; member schedules, as well as the R2 visit, would interfere with scheduling an additional meeting.





Specific Issues from ERM Q & A Session


1.      Eliminating double display of information from Serial Solutions (SS) and check-in record to produce a user interface that is easier to use and less cluttered.
Dealing with check-in records linked to the inappropriate bib record.


The 856 field will become outdated – Monthly coverage loads from SS should include updated information for the 856 fields and should overlay outdated with current information.


Current complaints about mismatch between 856 and SS coverage loads are due a time lag between the last update (June) and the recent update in September that resulted in between 17-15,000 updated records.  This issue should be resolved now since there will be monthly updates.


Suppressing the resource records was discussed as an option to reduce clutter however, that would interfere with Meredith’s work on the staging server.


Heather will research the Resource ID format issues looking into any existing standards or limitations.  There was a format presented at the training session – is this still the accepted format or has it changed?


J. Gerke brought up a concern about display issues if the 856 field is suppressed and only the check-in record is visible.  This will create a display for serials, which will differ from the current 856 display for electronic monographs.


2. Item record concerns: Is the Item record necessary on the display?  Item record includes wording “internet” which sends the wrong message to patrons – suggestion to change to “online”, Item record is too visible can it be moved or made less visible.


Meredith said that the item record box could be smaller and she will investigate the possibility of changing the position to the bottom of the bib record.


The change will be brought to COG for approval.


Taskforce recommendation is to change “internet” to “online”.  Waiting on COG approval to institute change.


3.      Change “about the resource” button display coming from the resource record to “package and license”.  About the resource is misleading.


Meredith will change the button on the live server.


4.      Find articles and More display and sort.


Creating Resource record for subject specific guides that will always sort to the top of the list.


Find Articles and More entry page could have a link to Bibliographer created flat pages with recommendations on the use of specific databases.


The WebPac Pro display of Find Articles and more includes descriptive information, which could provide guidance on the appropriate use of the databases similar to the current system.


5.      Public Display working group needs to meet with staff involved with instruction to discuss implications.


J. Parker suggested a meeting to focus on the implications of changes to the public display for instruction.


Taskforce Recommendations are


  • To rely on the check-in record display to provide access to online journals from bib records.  Meredith will add the check-in record display to the live server. The 856 field will be suppressed (flipped to a 956) as the coverage load for each package is loaded.


  • Submit wording change to COG in regards to the use of “internet” versus “online”. 


  • Change the “about the resource” button to “package and license.”  Inform University Libraries about the upcoming changes to the public display.


  • Schedule meeting with Public display working group and instruction staff to discuss the possible changes and their implications for instruction.