Present: Paula Ball, Matthew Beacom (chair), Soraya Magalhaes-Wilson, Tony Oddo, Kim Parker, Rick Sarcia (minutes), Step Schmitt, Patricia Thurston
The group discussed issues concerning the re-organization of the e-cat committee, the status of record loads and the processes involved with them, and URL maintenance in Orbis.
1. Announcements Matthew Beacom reported that the Serials Solutions load is moving forward, although a glitch has been discovered Voyager is not recognizing the delete code in records (probably not a large number of them); systems is working on resolving the problem, so priority for the load has moved to a set of IEEE conference proceedings.
Kim Parker reported that Yale has just signed a contract with NetLibrary to provide e-books (with MARC records) on a title by title basis.
The question was raised as to the number of records that could be loaded manually (i.e., at a desktop) and when it would be prudent to enlist the services of the Projects Analysis Database group, or PAD, (formerly DBA). Matthew stated that, as a rule of thumb, he uses roughly 1,000 stable records as the cut off point. Dynamic records, or loads greater than 1,000 records are sent to PAD. Step Schmitt suggested that the committee address this issue and others that would require the involvement of PAD more formally.
2. Re-organization of the e-cat committee Matthew raised issues concerning the committee’s charge and membership (e.g., the role of some individuals who were to be used as consultants to the committee, or the number of public services representatives on the committee). Kim asked if the committee should have ex-officio members, especially in light of the fact that the group will now be reporting to CCC instead of directly to the head catalog librarian. Tony Oddo suggested that the committee’s web site should also be updated to reflect current membership.
Soraya Magalhaes-Wilson suggested that this might be an opportunity for the group to use the charge as way of outlining what types of projects the committee would want to undertake, and Kim added that it might also be useful as a means of representing the activities of the committee to CCC.
Action item: Matthew will review and revise the committee charge, and present a draft at the next meeting.
3. Status of record loads Matthew reported on the Serials Solutions load (see above) and also that the load of IEEE records is moving forward, although a definitive date has not yet been set for them. Soraya asked how information about e-resource record loads was distributed to outside libraries, and what their input might be. Matthew will report this information to CCC to keep them informed.
Action item: Matthew will also distribute a Serials Solutions database coverage list.
The group revisited the issue of getting record loads completed in a timely fashion, and what PAD’s role might be in accomplishing this. It was agreed that it would be beneficial to invite a PAD member (most likely Marsha Garman) to an e-Cat committee meeting to gain some insight into the record load process from their perspective. Step suggested that the group formulate what it would like to ask of PAD prior to a meeting. This will be an agenda item for the next meeting, and would include outlining a record load process and designating point people for the communication and coordination required to move e-resource load projects forward.
Matthew also asked the group to review a spreadsheet he has been working on, and offer suggestions as to how it may be revised and used as a tool to monitor and routinize load projects.
Kim suggested that the group also try and come up with a draft for the work flow process, including what the role of selectors might be. She reported earlier that there is a loads prioritization group among the selectors. Matthew emphasized the need for selectors to be aware also of the record analysis process (i.e., insuring that quality records are provided for e-resources if they are to be loaded).
Patricia Thurston asked how other institutions were handling e-resource load projects. She will confer with Matthew then contact Cornell to see how they handle workflow and load process management.
4. URL maintenance in Orbis Matthew reported that a new URL maintenance tool is being used. It does not work directly in Orbis, but checks URLs from a list generated by a Voyager report. Previously, Matthew and Celio Pichardo would review reports and check the URLs. Matthew prompted the group to consider how the new URL tool might be used. It is likely that, for now, a C & T (other than Celio, since he will be leaving the department) will be trained to perform URL maintenance using Link Checker. Kim noted the importance of instructing people where to find the stable URL on a web page. Soraya also noted that, because of the library’s federal depository status, people needed to be aware of issues concerning access to certain government e-resources.
Matthew envisioned Catalog Management overseeing the URL maintenance process eventually, although it may be some time before they can take on this responsibility given their present workload.
Action item: Soraya and Tony will review issues surrounding URL maintenance and the URL maintenance tool.
5. Policies and procedures This agenda item was moved to the next meeting because we ran out of time, but there was a brief discussion prompted by Paula Ball’s question as to whether or not e-journal records were exported to the bibliographic utilities. Matthew reported that in general, yes, they were exported, but licensing restrictions prevent the library from exporting all of them (e.g., Serials Solutions).
For our information, or as a possible future agenda item, Kim reported that an e-book database (much like the e-journal database) has been created, at least for the short term.