Summit-Cat DRWG meeting 2007-01-05
Meeting started: 12:58pm
Meeting eneded: 1:58pm
Attending: Mike, Tom, Marcia, Carol, Diana, Friday (absent: Daniel) [what about Alliance staff person joining us for next time? Janet C.? Michelle? John?]
Our summit-cat committee home page link is: http://www.orbiscascade.org/staffhome/SCC-DRWG.htm
Our wiki home page link: http://wiki.library.oregonstate.edu/confluence/x/NC0
Report from SCC working group meeting 2007-01-04:
-- Mark Dahl thinks we should be focusing on ERM dupes, not just sets
-- Consider adding to our recommendation guidelines that libraries attempt to negotiate making records available in consortial catalogs (for those vendors that don't want sharing)
-- John H. sees Summit as a union catalog
-- Data Harvesting group report: maybe our group can help them to find a way to flag records for non-harvesting (from harvesting groups like Google, DLSAquifer) [by getting more folks to contribute but to find a way for marking records to not be further harvested due to license negotiations; right now this is out of the scope of the DRWG but if we run across anything that could assist the DH group, we'll forward it.]
Discussion of Vendor Record Packages/Sets:
Diana reported that she's put her vendor 001 info up on the wiki, she reports on microform as well as electronic sets
-- numbers are in general stable, that is the same for any institution (except for Making of America)
-- she was told some vendors have future plans of being provided with OCLC numbers but not OCLC records.
* There was discussion of impact of the above on dupes situation; not sure how many records that will be in the future
Tom: Oxford Reference Online: sets are available on their website for free download. 001 field is stable, and starts with prefix "OXO/[10-digit #]"
Friday: Books 24x7: vendor reports 001 fields are same for everyone (ie, stable)
Carol: nexus/westlaw/cassidy: stable control #s that start with "ccn"
Discussion of ERM records:
-- what's the advantage of brief records in summit? Best for institutions where folks are started in summit. (base assumption is that everything you could find in your catalog should be in summit; are most institutions thinking that way?)
-- URLs are in the holdings not 856 so it shows alongside the instutition holding
-- most of the records are serials, no 222 field, could manually enter a 229 field
-- is it possible to create an 001 with "erm" prefix? III enhancement request for prefix?
-- do ERM records go thru a load table?
-- need Janet Crum's ERM/001 enhancement recommendation from last year; sounds like her document may be along the lines of what we're thinking as well.
-- getting 022s into 001? Perhaps Alliance could turn on 022 matching and try to get folks to contribute during that time. Perhaps that's too much for the workflow of most institutions.
-- is it even appropriate for brief records to be in SummitCat? should we recommend reviewing the contribution policy?
-- what's the extent of the brief record problem? Some folks don't contribute them. Brief records are automatically going to be unique as they don't match to other fuller records.
-- how brief is brief? Are they temporary? Are they used long-term? There will probably always be thousands of brief records for sets that will never be upgraded (Ebsco, etc.)
-- staff and workload issues
*** get Janet's document and go from there.
Janet reported she hadn't written anything up (FKV was mistakenly thinking of the URL resolver proposal) but she took the time to write this up for us Friday afternoon:
"Proposed enhancement to address duplicate brief ERM bibs in Summit:
Currently, brief bibliographic records created by ERM consist of an ISSN, a title, and whatever data is in the library's bibliographic template. No 001 field is populated, so these records do not match any existing records in Summit. I propose that III modify ERM such that when brief bibliographic records are created, an 001 field is generated based on the ISSN or ISBN field, with some sort of prefix that designates that the record was created by ERM. This way, all brief bibs created by ERM for the same title would match and create a single instance in Summit, with individual library holdings attached. These records would not match full bibliographic records for the journals, leaving some duplication. But having them match full bibs could be problematic in that some would match bibs for print journals, and others would match bibs for electronic journals. Until the serials cataloging community standardizes on a single model (single- or multiple-record approach) for cataloging journals, it seems safest to have the brief records separate." --Janet
***Diana's waiting for more non-OCLC number info [hopefully meeting some folks around ALA in a couple of weeks and should know more by next meeting]
Writing our Report:
[Remember Nancy recommends we frame these as "best practices".--fkv] Friday proposed we write up our recommendation on 001s for packages.
***Recommendation possible wording: For Alliance staff to be the central coordinators for packages with notes for individual libraries on how to deal with each vendor. Libraries would need to be educated to contact Alliance at start of negotiations/loads.
--get going on producing recommendation document. We're still going on the assumption of trying to finish by Feb. 1 but we can ask for an extension (and will decide next time on extension request). Mike and Friday will work on an outline, and have out on the wiki by next Friday 1/12 for review. Will start with Diana's 6 points.
--next time: 1/26 1pm [Friday has written Susie for scheduling]
FKV addendum:
I found this info in the SCC meeting minutes of 9/22/06:
"Duplicates * Discussion: Janet wants to share OHSU's experience in this area. Nancy is working on a memo regarding prevention of loading duplicates. Would the steering committee want to propose solutions? Nancy suggested polling the entire committee to identify interested parties, such as those who have worked on the 001 field problem for electronic books (Pam Smith and Terry Reese, for example). A possible action would be petitioning III to add the 001's to ERM records.(emphasis FKV) Also consider e-books and batch loads of records from vendors other than OCLC. More process is needed on the 001 issue. There are other issues (avoiding overlay of brief records based on ISSN, for example). Janet can be a resource person. Should electronic resources be emphasized? Nancy said no, batch loads are a big problem. Also, Summit policy does not match on 022 fields, due to lack of consistency is successive entries. Should this be reconsidered? Janet sees it as a possible solution to the ERM problem. Mark emphasized the need for this group to focus on big problems and high-impact solutions."