ERM Minutes 7/26/2006


Present:  Callahan, Fong, Gobrecht, Helgoth, Lamboy, Jobe, Moeller, Wakimoto, Wicht


The group discussed III’s response to a call about indexing the local subjects (field q) in the resource record:


I am writing in response to the call referenced above in which you reported that you can not search the local subject terms assigned to q-tagged fields in your resource records. At this point, only the d-tagged 650 field in your resource records have been indexed into a subject index - and those are in your regular d index. If you would like the q-tagged field indexed in a SEPARATE index please get ask your system coordinator, John Culshaw, to contact me and let me know that name for that index and whether the h or j index is preferred (your only remaining index letters).



After reviewing the pluses and minuses, the group believes that it would be best to keep LC Subject Headings and Local Subject Headings in separate indexes.  Several thought that two new search indexes came out of the box with ERM:  y for resource titles and m for local subjects.  Bowling Green State and Ohio State both use those indexes for their A-Z and subject indexes. 


Since the group remains confused by the response, Wakimoto agreed to write a follow-up message to III.  It was suggested that she might want to contact Ted Fons, the ERM product manager, for clarification.  If at all possible the Libraries would like to reserve the h and j indexes for future enhancements to the catalog.


Although the ERM committee can make a recommendation, the final decision rests with COG.


In response to a request for guidance from Helgoth, the group also discussed parameters for “turning on” titles in Serials Solutions and when to create resource records for platforms such as Metapress, Ingenta, HighWire, and others.  So far the Libraries has not followed a consistent practice, in part because several people are working on this project. 


After discussion, the following decisions were reached:


With respect to Serials Solutions (SS):


Turn on titles in this preferred order:


1)      Signed license with the publisherà Turn on by publisher in SS

2)      No license with publisher but listed in SS by publisherà Turn on by publisher in SS

3)      No license, not listed in SS by publisherà Turn on by platform in SS

4)      Not available by any of these optionsà  Contact SS


The goal is to reduce the appearance of duplicate records in the public display and to reduce maintenance.  Helgoth and Fong can answer questions about licenses.


With respect to ERM:


1)      Signed license with publisherà Create a resource record and associate it with the license and/or vendor records.

2)      Platformà Create a resource record in ERM but suppress it from the public; include a list of major publishers and other relevant information in the internal notes fields.


Information needed to manage e-resources and information needed for public access to e-resources differ significantly.   Those present agreed that before ERM goes live to the public, a group should review resource records individually to determine whether or not they should be displayed to the public.


There was also a discussion of when to create separate resource records for “orphan” (stand alone) titles in ERM.  Although all agreed that anything with a license needs an ERM record, the decision for individual titles without licenses is a little less clear.  Again, what the public needs and what the Libraries needs for ARL statistics and other management issues differ.  Discussion of this issue should continue at the next meeting of the whole ERM group.