Case Western Reserve University
Bibliographic Committee Meeting
Law Library Conference Room
December 11, 2008

In attendance:
Terry O’Malley, Deb Dennison, Rosanna Masley, Denise Green (CIM), Dana Bjorklund, Mike Yeager, Richard Wisneski, SaraJean Petite

Pre-meeting discussion of 856

• Dana discovered that an 856 in the check-in record will create a hyperlink in the display.
• The example Dana showed the committee was Journal of aesthetics and art criticism.
• Mike said that he orders more check-in records when we’re running low. Currently, our upper limit is 48,000
• There was a consensus that putting library-specific URLs in the check-in records seemed to be preferable because it clearly displays that an electronic title belongs to a specific title.
• We don’t think 956 is currently active in our catalog.
• Deb asked how libraries were handling 856 for proprietary databases. Some specify restrictions in the display note.

Appointment of Recorder

• SaraJean was appointed secretary by acclaim.

Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

• The minutes from the October 9 meeting were approved with corrections
• It was noted that Richard received the dot matrix printer he requested at the last meeting.

OhioLINK Catalog Architecture Planning Paper
Terry distributed copies of Margaret Maurer’s remarks to the DMS listserv

System Operability Issues (“How it works”)
• Deb liked the modular approach (where different vendors’ modules would work together), particularly for the local catalog.
• Terry was concerned about what it would look like locally, and he referred to model 2a, where libraries connect their local to OhioLink
• Mike said there was a “black box” model where everyone’s local system would connect to OhioLink regardless of the local software.


Financial Issues

• Mike said that if OhioLink made a major change, they’d spend a lot of money at once, and support would require less.
• Related to technical support: Later in the meeting, Mike asked if the committee members had seen the YouTube video with the “help desk” for a book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ


Innovative Issues

• Mike says that OhioLink’s III software has hit a ceiling and cannot put more libraries online. They’re talking about putting public libraries on one box, academic on another, III wasn’t keen on it.
• Later in the meeting, someone said that OhioLink is concerned because Innovative does not respond to concerns as quickly as we’d like.


Local Data Issues

• Margaret’s remarks contained a statement about storing data locally
• Deb raised the concern of items that do not circulate off-campus, so they are suppressed from OhioLink. (CIM is not in OhioLink, so they suppress everything. KSL suppresses items for materials that do not circulate.)
• SaraJean said that Law suppresses items that don’t circulate, but leave bib unsurpassed to help with other libraries’
• Terry said that if we’re cataloging something that’s suppressed, we should remember to unsuppress its bib record.


Timetable and Process for Change

• Deb wanted to know about process and timetable. Mike said that this is very preliminary, and they’re not ready to release a final document.
• Dana thinks nothing concrete will come of it for many years.
• Mike says it’s concrete when they hire the programmers.
• Both Ginger Saha (Health Science Library Director) and Kathy Carrick (Law Library Director) were under the impression we’d be off Innovative in 2-3 years. Mike said that would be an unrealistic time frame to migrate OhioLink.


Local Library Upgrades

• Mike heard from someone at III that they’re creating a standard model for libraries’ upgrades.


Other Issue

• Terry was taken aback by question in the Architecture Planning Paper about whether OhioLink continues.

RDA Discussion

• We’ll have to wait until June finishes reading the RDA document before we can discuss it.
• Dana said that we couldn’t print it all in one place. TOC is 76 pages.
• Richard said that some sections weren’t done yet.
• Dana asked for clarification about how RDA would fit with MARC. Terry said that it was designed so people could use MARC or Dublin Core.
• Deb said that she’d read that RDA does not accommodate all the difficult electronic stuff with which we have to deal.
• Deb wants to know how FRBR will work differently. Richard said that Indiana University has gotten a grant to redo their music collection for FRBR.
• After the meeting, Richard sent the following link to more information about Indiana University’s project: http://www.indiana.edu/~library/sources/fall2008/story3.html
• Dana likes the idea of having different versions together. She is annoyed by getting 25 of the same thing and having to determine which one she wants. Terry says that OhioLink has duplicates, and it indexes TOC in its regular title index.

And, on the topic of catalog functionality…

• Mike said that there’s a persistent link option in the bibliographic record display that gives a nice link that one can cut and-paste.

III Codes

• Terry presented a list of codes that are in Anzio, but he could not find in Millennium.
• Mike said that what appears may differ by accounting unit.
• Mike said that there’s not a one-to-one match between telnet and Millennium.
• If we find additional problem codes, we should send them to Terry.

Content Café

• Mike mentioned OhioLink would be getting Content Café (Image of the book or DVD jacket, table of contents, and reviews). Our campus has not turned it on because the indexing for the ISBN field was not set correctly.
• Terry asked about Content Café expense, Mike said it was inexpensive and that we’d be able to use the images for purposes other than the catalog. It’s an opt-in thing. Bowling Green has it, as do Akron, Wright State, University of Akron, and OPAL.

Other Innovative Issues

• Holds and INN reach tabs in Milcirc don’t sync when there’s a new release.
• Denise asked if there was a quick way to find out what Innovative changes were. Mike said that one had to search through a database for known-item.

Government Document Marcive Records

• SaraJean said that the GPO has moved from the single-record approach (paper, fiche, and PDF of the same record) to the multiple record approach. This means that there will no longer be an 856 field on the records for physical formats.
• SaraJean explained that the Government Documents community is not happy about this.
• SaraJean was asked what action she intended to take. She said that first of all, she was complaining to the Bibliographic Committee. Then, she would talk with Karen Thornton (Government Documents librarian at Kelvin Smith) and figure out how we were going to deal with the issue.

Practicums

• SaraJean and Richard requested practicum students from KSU, but neither has found a practicum student for spring semester.

Next meeting:

• Thursday, January 29, 2009 at 3:00 in the Law Library Conference Room.

Adjourn

Respectfully Submitted,
SaraJean Petite


Return to Bibliographic Committee Main Page