ERM Implementation Team



Present:  Baia, Culshaw, Fong, Helgoth, Jobe, Wicht


Various ideas gleaned from IUG and other sources:


·        ERM FAQ http://csdirect.iii.com/faq/erm.shtml is very helpful.

·        Coverage loads are a trickier aspect of ERM.  Changes in release 2005 should eliminate some problems.  After we have some resource records, we should try coverage loads for some sample resources.

·        After discussion of the pros and cons, the team decided to experiment with sample resource records before finalizing fixed and variable fields.  One key factor:  we’ll be able to extract more statistics from the system if we include information that we might need for statistics as variables in fixed fields.  E-codes are our own locally defined codes that are useful for statistical purposes down the road.  Coding is also valuable for generating A-Z lists.

·        Although important, we can consider public display options at some point in the future because the records will remain suppressed until the Libraries rewrites the web options file. 

·        Loading of bib records.  A coverage load from Serials Solutions (SS) is free but only includes title, ISSN, and URL.  The SS Marc subscription service costs $9-10K/yr.

·        Can we pull from vendors records into contacts?

·        Prior to release 2005, problems existed in linking of bib records to resource records. 

·        Choice of resource record types significant for ARL statistics, which have evolved over time. 

·        Baia agreed to look at cataloging record for JSTOR.  Currently 1 record for 4 collections.

·        Need for open lines of communication.  Recommend that committee members make a habit of doing regular updates at PS, TS, and Council meetings.  Suggest that FSDC might want to sponsor an ERM session.  Session should include:  what is ERM, what’s a resource, why are we implementing ERM, a resource page, and what will I see in the OPAC.  Team will consider setting a date after it has experience with creating sample resource records (sometime after ALA).  To facilitate openness about the process, Culshaw will post minutes and other information to the Libraries website.


Resource records:


After discussion, the team identified potential resource types.  These may be collapsed or expanded at a later date.  One possible way to think of resource record types may be to examine relationship to workflow issues associated with each resource type.  (e.g. new titles in an e-book package that may need to be cataloged.)


1)      e-book package (e.g. NetLibrary or EngNetBase)

2)      journal package (e.g. JSTOR or Project Muse)

3)      publisher package (e.g. Wiley)

4)      individual journal (e.g. Science)

5)      database (bibliographic such as MLA or reference tool such as Reference USA)

6)      gateway (e.g. Ingenta, Highwire, Metapress, DOAJ)

7)      aggregator (e.g.  Academic Search Premier)

8)      membership (e.g. BioMed Central—a mix of subscription-based and open access journals.  Membership pays publication charges for CU authors.)

9)      Free with print (print subscriptions that include free access to electronic versions.  Not currently included in E-Journal Finder.)

10)  Other????



Relationships between record types (incomplete—concept may be useful at a later date):

.e resource

.l license

.b or .c  softlinks to bib or checkin records

Journal package


.l 1




.l 2









The committee agreed to meet every Monday from 12:00 noon to 1:30 pm in N410.  Jobe will take minutes.   Next meeting:  6/6/2005.


At the next meeting we will create a resource record or records.  Helgoth agreed to gather information for the following resources:

  • Science—individual title
  • Project MUSE—journal package
  • Academic Search Premier—aggregator
  • Reference USA--database