ERM Q & A session – October 4, 2006
Peggy and Yem, co-chairs of the ERM Implementation
Taskforce, called the meeting to order and introduced the members of the
taskforce (Baia, Callahan, Cronin, Culshaw, Fong, Graber, Helgoth,
Attendees were encouraged to ask questions since this is not a formal presentation. Specific design issues have not yet been resolved because the design issues are complex and involve many interacting systems. This session is to demonstrate progress to date and to gather feedback on the changes resulting from loading the Serial Solutions coverage loads into Chinook. The changes are often surprising.
Jina presented an overview addressing the ERM environment and context. All documentation for the ERM Implementation Taskforce is available at the bottom of the Chinook Systems page (http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/systems/chinook.htm) She compared the Print workflow with the complexities of the Electronic Resource Workflow which is a multilayered process involving Yem in more decision points. (See Electronic Resource Management Flowchart - http://www.diglib.org/pubs/dlf102/dlfermi0408appb.htm)
Currently these additional processes are disconnected from Chinook; ERM will integrate these previously separate systems. The ERM product from Innovative will integrate easily with our current system. The Serial Solutions knowledge base of electronic journal titles produces individual bib records for e-journals to integrate into Chinook as well as creating coverage load information updated monthly that links to individual bib records. Without Serials Solutions, creating the coverage load information and bib records would have been very difficult.
Q- Is there a link between the resource record and the bib record?
Yes, through the check-in record.
The third part is
The system is not full proof. Access depends on publishers who determine
where the link will connect (for example the full-text, the journal, or the
This should decrease the number of clicks required to access full-text.
Next Peggy demonstrated the changes to Find Articles and More that resulting from ERM implementation. There are currently over 300 ER records. Design issues have yet to be resolved. Meredith is working on the staging server and the live server with two different versions of Millennium.
Superficially, the Find Articles and More display is similar to the current display. However, now this dynamic system brings up a brief title record that connects to the full ER record. Brief descriptions, such as full text or citation database, have been added to the title to provide additional information to users about the database.
There will also be an index added to search ER records currently called resource name. Other possibilities are electronic contract and database name. The group voted a preference to change resource name to database name. More discussion will result before a final decision.
Q- Do the database titles appear in a prioritized order as they do now?
No, they sort alphabetically by title.
Q/C- I am concerned about the lack of prioritization of the databases. Users tend to go to the first database on the list.
We are working on ways to communicate additional information about the databases to the users so information currently available is not lost with this new system. For example, we can use ERM to create a record for specific subject guides that will direct users to additional information. This record would sort to the top of the list based on a “uniform” title. The new version of Web Pac Pro will include descriptions that can help guide the user. Another option is to contact Innovative with an enhancement request to address this issue. The taskforce is continuing to look for solutions for this issue.
Peggy demonstrated other changes visible now in the live Chinook Server since the SS coverage load has been loaded. See example below for Ambo. ER records on the live serve link through the “package and license” link formerly known as “about the resource”. During the meeting, it was suggested to change the wording since “about the resource” would not make much sense to users. The package and license link for Ambio links to Science Direct ER record. This record has links to every journal available through this package. The ER record will allow us to post advisories related to a specific package in every bib record of associated journal titles. This will increase communication with the users.
Monthly updates via the SS coverage load will keep records current. SS will keep up informed if titles leave or join a particular package. This helps achieve an early goal for ERM implementation to get the content of aggregated databases into Chinook.
Q- Why is there a two links to the full-text on the ERM page for Science Direct?
That design issue is still being worked on.
The SS coverage load takes the SS knowledge base each month and updates our catalog records. The new system will be as accurate as the information we get from SS, which has never been perfect.
The ERM taskforce continues to work on public display issues that come up as additional information is loaded into the Chinook live server. We are currently getting a double display on e-journal bib records for online access. There is one display from the Marc record 856 field and another display coming from the check-in record populated by the SS coverage load. The final design will not have both displays. There are no final decisions as to which records to suppress. Group at meeting indicated that suppressing the bib record would be their preference.
Another issue is the item record display which includes internet access and a call number that does not always correspond to our local collection. SS call numbers have the cutters stripped and replaced with “Internet”. Having the item record with the SS supplied call number provides a hot link allowing users to browse the call number range for related resources. Item record might be important for Prospector. LC call numbers on the SS records will increase subject access particularly over those records with SuDocs numbers.
C/Q-Can all web links look the same for serials and monographs?
There will be differences between serials and monographs because the links come from different records, the serials from the check-in record the monographs from the 856.
C/Q- There is nothing on the record that mentions the print resources. This will make it difficult for users to find the print. Two titles are very confusing to the students. There needs to be a meeting with people doing instruction and the public display group to discuss these issues.
Jina suggested a possible solution to put in the ER record a Marc tag indicating a hyper-link to the print title. The Public Display group will schedule a meeting with people doing instruction to discuss changes that affect instruction.
C/Q- Who wants to know about the package and license?
We have a
duty based on our license to inform users about license limitations for
electronic resources. ERM serves the
electronic resource management needs for staff while
C/Q- The about the resource button is confusing.
The button has been changed to package and license.
C/Q Can the location of the item display be changed to the bottom of the record.
The location might be hardwired. We need to check on that. Another suggestion was to temporarily suppress the item record display and see if there are any user complaints. More needs to be learned about the implications of suppressing this part of the bib record public display.
The big picture is that as the databases continue to increase in number, we will be getting increasing numbers of downloads from vendors with vendor-supplied call numbers. If we delete the call numbers or suppress the item records because they do not exactly match our local call numbers how will this reflect on the total holdings in Chinook? Do we suppress everything because a few do not match our system?
Other live server issues:
SS brief record display different from full record display
Not all the information has been entered into the ER records
Public display will not be consistent during this implementation stage. How do we help users deal with the changes?
Please contact individual members on the taskforce with questions and concerns.
Workflow group – Linda Helgoth, Gloria Lamboy, Yem Fong, Wendy Baia, Heather Wicht, Candy Gobrecht
Public Display group – Meredith Callahan, Alison Graber, Chris Cronin, Peggy Jobe, Wendy Baia, and Heather Wicht.
Coverage load group – Jina Wakimoto and Paul Moeller.