University System of Maryland and Affiliated Institutions
ERIC II Task Group
April 29, 2005
10-noon
User Interface Issues
In attendance: Jean Phillips (ITD), Heidi Hanson (ITD), Dave Kennedy (ITD), Celia Rabinowitz (SMCM), Linda Seguin (UMBC) , Wilma Bass (HSHSL), Marlene Vikor (CP), Kari Schmidt (ITD), Susanna Van Sant (notes) (CP), Betty Day (ITD), Lila Faulkner (ML), Mary Gilbert (TU), Debbie Berlanstein (TU), Ben Wallberg (ITD)
Introduction to sfx KnowledgeBase (KB) Maintenance
Purpose: To give us an understanding of KB structure and maintenance so that we might better appreciate issues surrounding loading this data into Aleph.
Betty showed how to enable a target. Simpler instances include those to which all campuses have access to a complete package of titles. More complex instances include those to which campuses have access to only a subset of what the publisher/vendor provides - and each campus has access to a different selection of that vendor's titles.
Kari explained updating the KB as campuses add subscriptions. A campus would send her an Excel file with ISSN and start year (and preferably start volume and issue). Kari can add all titles to the KB at once and then do some clean-up. Research Port is subsequently updated.
It was noted that version 2 of sfx doesn't handle title changes very well, but that version 3 offers some improvements.
Identify questions/issues in implementing sfx in the catalog.
To help frame the discussion, Heidi shared a list of questions that we will need to explore. She also distributed a packet of examples from the test OPAC.
(Note that version 3 of sfx has been enabled, unconditionally, in the test database.)
Question 1: Can we make the appearance of the find it button (FIB) conditional?
Should the FIB appear on every record in the OPAC (i.e., be unconditional) or only on selected ones (i.e., be conditional)?
If we desire conditional display, what conditions will we use? Dave described three conditional scenarios, in increasing order of programming complexity.
Conditional according to format. The FIB would display on all journal records. The programming could be done fairly easily (with java script).
Conditional according to an sfx identifier. Records loaded into the OPAC from the sfx KB would have an identifier added to them. The FIB would appear only if the sfx KB had a record for the title.
Conditional according to dynamic sfx KB look-up. The FIB would appear if a dynamic search of the KB indicated that electronic full text was available.
We spent a few minutes brainstorming pros and cons of each scenario. [insert flip chart transcriptions]
Complexities underpinning all scenarios included the nature of the information available in the catalog records and issues surrounding patron identification/authentication and having 16 different versions of the sfx KB.
----> Next steps.
Linda, Wilma, Heidi and Laura will work together to fantasize about what the FIB menu should look like in an unconditional implementation. They will have something prepared for our next meeting.
-----> Next meeting: May 17, 10-12.
RIC2 – Catalog Database Management Issues
In attendance: Ben Wallberg (ITD), Jean Phillips (ITD), Betty Day (ITD), Marlene Vikor (CP), Ted Kruse (UB), Wilma Bass (HSHSL), Linda Seguin (notes) (UMBC), Mary Gilbert (TU)
Topic: Union View
Ben Wallberg explained Aleph’s Union View feature, which is usually used to achieve a virtual union catalog in sites that maintain separate bibliographic files. Separate bibliographic records are merged virtually, based on a customizable table of equivalencies. The preferred record, which is the one that displays, is selected on the fly based on specifications. Tags from the non-preferred merged records may also be displayed on the resulting virtual record, based on specifications. All of the records still exist in the database and are indexed separately, but only the virtual merged record will ever be displayed in the OPAC. The holdings from each of the existing records should also be merged and displayed under the merged bibliographic record; that feature is not working on our current version (of Aleph or of Union View?), but there are other versions in which it does work, so we should be able to make it happen. The group clarified that we are working towards merged bibliographic records and not just merged holdings as was suggested in the Cataloging Policy Committee report.
Marlene Vikor volunteered to propose the following specifications (with input from the Cataloging Policy Committee):
Bibliographic record matching
Selection of the preferred record
Mary Gilbert and Wilma Bass volunteered to propose display specifications, including:
Which tags from the non-preferred records should be included in the display of the virtual merged record?
Are there tags in the preferred record that should be suppressed from display to achieve a more generic record to cover all iterations?
Topic: Identify questions/issues in loading and updating. Decide next steps for creation of loader specifications.
Jean Phillips distributed 3 documents:
A page from the Aleph Indexes for MAI01, which shows which MARC fields and subfields are included in the 022 (ISSN) index
USMAI Specifications for the initial SFX Serials Records Loader, a draft by Young Kim (2/9/2005), with comments by Marlene Vikor (2/14/2005)
Update Titles/Holdings in Catalog, Based on SFX Knowledge Base, by Jean Phillips (4/28/2005)
Also available are the 2 Cataloging Policy Committee documents
Bibliographic options for multi-format serials in catalogusmai
SFX in the Catalog
We discussed a number of questions regarding loading bibliographic records and holdings into catalogusmai from the SFX Knowledge Base:
When the Find It button is clicked, which ISSN(s) from the MARC record is sent to SFX as a query?
If there are multiple matches on ISSN, to which bibliographic record should the proposed SFX loader attach holdings? The group thought that the easiest thing to do may be to attach holdings to all matching bib records, assuming that the holdings can be de-duped in the merged display.
What should we do with the 856 and 956 fields present in the bib record if that record is identified as a match in the SFX Knowledge Base? The group agreed that if the ‘SFX Identifier’ is present in the bibliographic record, then 856 and 956 fields should be deleted from the record in favor of access via SFX.
What do we do about those SFX Knowledge Base records that do not have a corresponding bib record in catalogusmai? Jean Phillips pointed out that we may wish to consider the initial load and ongoing loads separately, since the initial load is expected to be such a large number of records. A previous report indicates that about 50% of the records in the SFX KB had no corresponding ISSN in catalogusmai. Marlene Vikor requested that a new report be run, now that SFX KB records include both print and e-ISSNs.
Should we consider loading records from Ex Libris’ MARC-it service rather than loading “stubs” generated by the loader? Betty Day will inquire about whether there is a price difference if we want records for everything in the SFX KB vs. just that subset for which matching records don’t already exist in catalogusmai. There is also a question as to whether we would be charged for each of the 16 SFX KBs or if we can get pricing as a group.
We also discussed other companies that offer MARC record loads, including Serials Solutions and TDNet.
Would the SFX loader need to be run 16 times or could individual holdings for each campus be produced with one load? Ben Wallberg indicated that the number of loads could depend on how campuses wanted the records to appear on their load reports; a lot of additional programming may be needed to make it like the Gov Docs loader. The SFX loader will need additional programming as it is, since it will be unique in handling deletes and multiple matches.
Marlene Vikor agreed to work on SFX loader specs, provided that she could see the new report of matches between SFX KB and catalogusmai.
The next full ERIC2 meeting will be held 5/17/2005 from 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.