Updates | | Two proposals for review from the Linked Data Task Force: NZ management group recommendation on how to respond to the following questions from Clarivate/ExLibris regarding the evaluation of brief records: 1. What makes a record too brief to be relevant for discovery? 2. What does a record need to have in order to be considered full? 3. How does this vary by resource types? 4. Are there specific things that you would consider for the different resource types? 5. What other details would you like to provide? The NZ Group's recommended response is : The CSUs follow the minimal level record data elements as outlined in the MARC formats and OCLC Bib Formats recommendations. Minimal level metadata that should assist users would be the title, author/editor, edition, publisher, publication date, series if applicable, subjects, ISxN. Clarivate can take a look at the two links provided for more information on minimal level record data for different resource types. See background email discussion Do we have any questions, corrections or comments?
RMFC Satisfaction Survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjfaFcMSVFXlVTe4dJ05cC9kz0IhWEWCzJ6maDOWixGfFa3w/viewform?usp=sharing
Nerissa still evaluating secondary resource types Advocating for an NZ manager in the CO’s office
|