STAFF RESOURCES

Minutes of November 8, 2006 Meeting

Agenda:

  1. Status of Searchlight - Bob
  2. Article Linker Issues - Cathy, Marty
  3. Web Proposals for Display
  4. Brown Bag Demos for test period- Central Search
  5. SIRSI call about ERMS

1. Status of Searchlight

Bob reported that the paperwork for Central Search has been sent to Serials Solutions. He's asking them for the API tool for us to make changes ourselves

All: There was a discussion about the search terms and the level at which various databases support federated searching as well as the NISO standards used

Although now the focus is on Advanced and Simple searching on paid products, Bob will ask Serials Solutions if they have documentation on database interface

Gracemary questioned user participation (other universities)

2. Article Linker Issues

Cathy noted some Article Linker problems have been reported by librarians from AAL and sent to Serials Solutions support team, responses from Serials Solutions vary. Although issues are resolved, some answers may need to be questioned and brought to a higher level for Serials Solutions to enhance/develop their product.

Cathy will contact Serials Solutions to add the FAQ to the Results page and request the Citation Finder link to be added to the webpages (Laura will get feedback from WAC to confirm placement of the link)

Laura reported AAL questions related to AL & Firefox; Ann will discuss this with Dave since it seems to do with remote access patrons and the proxy

RefWorks
Marty explained when students download results from RefWorks, links don't work. We need the link to be active.
-Full text access is okay when accessing via RefWorks within the Rutgers Community (on-campus), however, not for students/faculty who are sharing information with colleagues at other universities
-Article Linker should be able to be used in RefWorks
(discussion) RefWorks training webinar is necessary

3. Web Proposals for Display

Consensus among the group preferred the 'Demo Front Page'
-information is okay
-would prefer beam of yellow coming from sleeker flashlight

4. Brown Bag Demos for Test Period

Marty suggested it should not be a brown bag lunch, but rather an information session/demo-we're looking for feedback, it's a work in progress and we want to encourage responses- look at display options and levels

Summary:

5. Conference Call with SIRSI representatives

Lisa Witteman (Project Coordinator - Acquisitions/ERMS)
Jane Grawemeyer (Project Manager - Acquisitions/Cataloging/Serials/ERMS)

[RUL Introductions]
Ann- our background:
-AL is implemented
-ERMS still in training
-Central Search in the process of implementing

Question: What is SIRSI doing to implement ERMS?
In WorkFlows 3.1 there will be a 'click button'

Lisa had three prepared questions for Rutgers, and would also like to know what we wanted to prioritize.

1. Of the three methods for print holdings export offered by Serials Solutions, (MARC Holdings, item records, latest issues statement) does Rutgers expect to choose one of those options as the source of print holdings information to export to Serials Solutions, or are there other expectations? There are currently tools in place for importing print holdings. (comma delimited file) When AL displays e-holdings, print would also be displayed along side.

Rutgers would be looking at a MARC Holdings export.
So, the print holdings would only be serials.
For the print only holdings, the file currently would only need to include the title and some other basic information.
Since we had a lot of questions about how this would work and function, Lisa suggested a conference call with the appropriate Serials Solutions rep.
(Issues- Periodicals, Full Text (cover to cover), no books, Databases that include monographs..)

2. Since we are implementing the MARC record service, Lisa asked if we identified any Unicorn obstacles relating to loading/maintaining these records.

Bob -no real problems to report, he already had scripts for EBSCO loads, so a similar procedure is used for the Serials Solutions records. (This information was more helpful to SIRSI since we seemed to have this procedure worked out- smaller libraries might benefit from our mechanism).
We chose the Direct linking option for Serials Solutions urls. We are sent Full (CONSER) and Brief records (v.brief) and match on OCLC#. We have New, Deleted, and Changed (url change) files.

3. SIRSI could add buttons in WorkFlows to launch Central Search from a bib record, serial control record, or Acquisitions order or invoice. How useful or important does this seem to Rutgers?

An ISSN openurl search would be passed to Central Search but only search the subscribed content. It would be nice, but not necessary at this point in time. Maybe if we didn't catalog all of our electronic content- or if it searched the entire knowledge base instead of the selected content, it would be more useful in ordering new content by knowing who the various providers were.

Other Comments-
We would prioritize MARC Holdings tools and functions to move forward with 'RU-Online'. As far as we know, Serials Solutions does not have notable information on MARC Holdings.

Lisa reported working with Serials Solutions on defined ERMS fields for Acquisitions.

Ann-
Expectation: SIRSI is to implement an easy way to move existing data from Acquisitions/Serials Control information to ERMS.

Opportunities for Enhancement:
-Tools for MARC Holdings
-Export from Unicorn for populating ERMS
-Launching of Central Search button- helper

-SIRSI- Coordinate a conference call with Lisa and Danielle from Serials Solutions.
Conference Call - Opportunities for Enhancement
-Export from Unicorn for populating ERMS
-MARC Holdings tools
-Print holdings to ERMS
-Launching of Central Search button (helper)

-Ann will follow up with Lisa & Jane

Next Meeting- Dec. 13, 2006 9:30am (TSB Conference Room)



 
URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/eratf/minutes/eratf_06_11_08.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)