Minutes

Attendees: Tim Lowontin (BU); Maggie Rioux (MBL/WHOI); Joseph Natale (UC); Linda Matson (UM Amherst); Micheline Jedrey (Wellesley), Director Liaison; Joan Thompson (BLC Liaison), Guest; Margie Fiels (BC) (co-recorder) Walter Komorowski (Williams) (co-recorder)

The Taskforce discussed the Evaluation of the Virtual Catalog Project (2/1/03). The report showed the BLC membership and networks satisfied with the Virtual Catalog as a concept, concluding that the Virtual Catalog (VC) is an important service that needs to continue. However, the report did not address the functionality of the URSA software itself, which would have been helpful to this taskforce. Joan explained that the consultant.s task was to assess end user and staff satisfaction with the VC and not functionality.

The original charge to the Taskforce was reviewed and Micheline reminded the group that we should be focusing on a solution for the BLC at this time. Any discussions about where the networks fit into future developments with new products is not an issue for this Taskforce.

The Taskforce discussed Maggie Rioux's report from ALA. Maggie visited several ILL-related and periodicals linking software vendors. Her report distinguished between context-sensitive-linking (links to full text from within database results) and resource discovery (products that allow you to determine ownership within the consortium for a particular issue of a journal).

Maggie also reported on new software from Dynix (formerly Epixtech). Horizon ILL (HILL) will replace URSA. URSA is no longer being developed. HILL handles both returnables and non-returnables. Its search interface is based on the Horizon Information Protocol (HIP) and thus a vast improvement over the current URSA interface. The new Horizon package also would include Remote Patron Authentication, which could replace the current BLC borrower.s card system if fully implemented. According to sales people at ALA, the HILL product will be available in the Fall of 2003.

The Taskforce agreed that no current product can serve the BLC need for unmediated requesting of journal articles directly from citation and that we would not be able to recommend a product for that purpose. Several members of the Task force questioned Dynix's ability to bring HILL to fruition, given Epixtech's past history. However, we do believe that we need to look at HILL and at other products that could serve as intermediate steps but still improve services to patrons.

The Taskforce decided to develop two BLC programs. One program will compare HILL and a competitor. BLC staff most actively involved in URSA would be asked to critique URSA and provide guidance for what features we need to look at in the future. This would help the Taskforce in its final recommendations to either retain URSA/HILL or to recommend the BLC look at another product for ILL functions.

The second program would focus on context-sensitive-linking programs (such as SFX, from ExLibris, Linkfinder+ from Endeavor and possibly ArticleLinker from SerialsSolutions). Although these programs would not serve as an ILL product for the consortium, several libraries are already using or considering these software programs, and therefore BLC might be able to get special consortium pricing. BLC libraries currently using these products would also be asked to provide input and demos of their implementations. This would provide a better basis for making informed decisions about context-sensitive linking solutions as the BLC moves toward a product that would provide unmediated requesting of journal articles from within a database. Because the programs would run the entire day, Joan and Micheline agreed to put together a budget for Management Counsel to cover the cost of lunch. Joan will contact vendors and put together a range of possible dates for their demos. In preparation, the Taskforce decided it would also survey BLC members to determine which products they have or are considering. Linda Matson agreed to draft a survey. It was agreed that the programs should be sooner rather than later.

The Taskforce discussed the interim report due next week. Walter Komorowski agreed to write a first draft and Margie Fiels agreed to embellish upon it before sharing it with the group.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Theresa Lyman (BC's Digitial Resources Reference Librarian) provided the group with a very informative behind-the-scene's look at BC's implementation of SFX.

• Linda Matson will put together a survey of current interests and investments in context-sensitive-linking by BLC libraries. It will be distributed to the directors
• Joan will contact vendors to try and arrange dates for our two programs
• Micheline and Joan will put a budget together for lunch for our program
• Walter and Margie will write up the interim report and share it with the Taskforce

Attendees: Dorothy Keller (BPL); Tim Lowontin (BU); Maggie Rioux (MBL/WHOI); Joseph Natale (UC); Linda Matson (UM Amherst); Micheline Jedrey (Wellesley), Director Liaison; Sonya Walters (BLC), Guest; Margie Fiels (BC), Recorder.

Micheline suggested what the TF might want to include in a program for the BLC membership: update on current VC activities; demonstration of VC; discussion on impact on workflow; use statistics, including patterns among libraries; review of the VCFTF I report and new product recommendations; and the consultant report.

The status of the consultant report was discussed. Micheline will ask Barbara about the status of the report and what stage it is in. The timing of the TF program will depend on when the consultant report is made public. There was general agreement that a program highlighting the present working of the Virtual Catalog would not have the appeal that one would that incorporates a demonstration of the current system together with the VCFTF I report and the consultant report. The current TF members believe that they cannot plan for a meaningful program or take further steps to evaluate the products recommended by the VCFTF I until they know when the consultant report will be available and its content. The consultant report will also direct the group as to whether to examine products to search serials alone (i.e. URSA remains as the product for books) or to look for a global solution.

There was further discussion of the VCFTF I report and the products recommended for investigation: Endeaver's LinkFinder Plus and Ex Libris' SFX. There was a brief demo of SFX as implemented at Boston College. TF members discussed whether they already have any of the products recommended at their local campuses.

Serials Solutions and TDNet were additional union listing products used at various institutions for accessing electronic journals that should be reviewed for applicability. Linda demonstrated TDNet, a union list of print and online journals, for the group as implemented by the Five College Library System.

There was a discussion of the importance of serials requesting and the relationship to the current Epixtech implementation for books. The discussion focused on whether the consortium was ready to move onto implementing another product before all libraries were up and running on the current patron-initiated book interlibrary system. Three libraries (not including the new members) are still not participating because of technical issues and the fact that they all implemented the same new online library system, Aleph, marketed by Ex Libris. The NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP) had to be developed for these sites and testing is currently taking place between Ex Libris and Epixtech. Margie will investigate the current status of testing and report back to the group.

Next Steps: Micheline will report back to the group on any information she receives about the consultant report and another TF meeting will then be scheduled. The group agreed to alternate physical meetings between Boston College and a site in Worcester. However, much of the work of the group will be conducted via e-mail.

1. We introduced ourselves and discussed our interested in the project. Represented on the committee are people specializing in systems, ILL, and Reference. We found that we have different interests and experiences with the Virtual Catalog. MBL-WHOI and BPL have been long-time contributors, Williams went up this summer, UCONN and BU are not yet using the Virtual Catalog. Joe provided background on the UCONN arrangement for ILL borrowing and loaning among their campus.
   
   
2. Those using the Virtual Catalog provided some information about searching capabilities and workflow to those not yet using the VC. We agreed that Maggie would give a live demo of the VC (tech and public mode) at our next meeting.
   
   
3. We discussed in detail our charge. (Mich please correct any misunderstandings that we have). Here is our understanding:
   
   a. We are to provide a program on the Virtual Catalog's functionality to the BLC members prior to December.
   
   b. We are expecting a consultant report on work flow issues and user satisfaction with the current Epixtech system.
   
   c. After receiving the report, we are to evaluate the Epixtech system and to explore other options to provide unmediated requests of returnables and non-returnables.
   d. We are then to recommend to the BLC a system or systems that might meet the BLC's need to provide this service.
   
   e. There potentially could be a different system for returnables and for non-returnables.
   
   f. The system we recommend might be an off-the-shelf product or might be a product that is developed out of existing products.
   
   g. Question? To what extend do we need to consider interfacing with the networks in our evaluation of products.
   
   
4. We decided that we need to meet sooner rather than later to begin development of the program/presentation for the BLC on the current Virtual Catalog. We would like Mich and Sonya Waters (the BLC ILL/VC coordinator) to attend if possible. We propose a meeting on the 9, 10, or 11th of October depending on peoples schedules. The meeting would be at 10:15 to make it more convenient to more distant members - Maggie or Dorothy will ask Margie is we could arrange a meeting at BC.
   
   
5. Action items:
   
   a. Joan will email members with the unabridged report from the first taskforce.
   
   b. Joan will subscribe all current members to the VC user group discussion list.
   
   c. Dorothy will get in touch with Linda Matson to catch her up and to find out which proposed meeting date works best for her.
   
   d. Maggie will do the same for Margie and Micheleine.
   
   e. Maggie will forward to the list information about the upcoming VC users meeting, since some members are not yet on the VC users listserv.
   
   f. Maggie will also forward to the list the current VC best practice/rules document.
   
   g. Walter will type up and distribute minutes.