Meeting: 25 July 2000

Present: Ellen Doon, Mickey Koth, Rosemary Plotnick, Manon Theroux (chair/recorder); absent: Dajin Sun, Patricia Thurston;
guest: Audrey Novak (Orbis2 project manager)

1. Setting of meeting times and place
2. Discussion of project and review of charge with Audrey Novak
3. Distribution of background documents
4. Identification of functional categories that will structure final report

1. Setting of meeting times and place

We will meet weekly, on Tuesday mornings, from 10:30-12:00, in Room 79, SML.

2. Discussion of project and review of charge with Audrey Novak

Project update:  Drafts of the requirements lists created by the Criteria WGs are now available on the Orbis2 website.  The Criteria WGs will complete these lists by the end of August.  They will also complete an "environmental statement" by then, intended to characterize the institutional context in which the LMS migration will be taking place.  The lists and statement will be sent to the vendors in early September together with a "request for solution".  It will take the vendors 3-4 weeks to respond.  After responses are received, the Migration Management Group will
review them with the chairs of the Criteria WGs and decide
1) whether to continue the process and

2) which vendors to continue working with.

Ideally, we will narrow the shortlist to two vendors at that time but we could continue with the four who gave short presentations in July.  The
vendors who remain on our shortlist will be asked to return to Yale sometime between the end of October and the beginning of December to give
intensive demonstrations to Yale staff.  The demos will be 4-5 days long and will feature both show-and-tell demo sessions and hands-on sessions.
All staff will be invited to participate; Evaluation WGs will formally review the presentations.

Charge: To provide lists of operations relating to cataloging and authority control that we want the vendors to demonstrate during these intensive
visits.  Deadline is September 22.  We will be basing much of our work on the requirements lists developed by the Criteria WGs but we will also be
expanding upon the lists because the Criteria WGs intentionally excluded basic operations, concentrating instead on ranking the importance of more
advanced features.  The documents that we create must address *both* basic and advanced capabilities.  Because the Criteria WG lists will not be
finalized until the end of August, Audrey recommends that we first work on identifying basic functions and save the more advanced features until
September.  Our lists will be used by the Evaluation WGs to help evaluate the systems during the vendor demos.

Areas of overlap:  Overlap amongst the nine Demo WGs is inevitable.  We should try to avoid duplication of effort as much as possible.  Demo WG
chairs should coordinate with each other and attempt to divide up overlapping areas of interest.  Audrey's suggestions:  Cataloging of items
in non-roman scripts would probably best be handled by the Non-Roman Scripts WG.  Check-in of serials will be covered by the Serials WG; general
serials cataloging should be addressed by our WG; the generation of patterns could be the responsibility of either WG.  Indexing should be
addressed by both our WG and the OPAC WG because indexing in staff mode and public mode can vary, both in fields indexed and in interface design.  Item
records should mostly be the responsibility of the Circulation WG.  Reports relating to authority control and the activities of the Catalog Management
Team should be addressed by our WG; reports relating to general database analysis should be addressed by the Reports WG.  Status-tracking, which
involves acquisitions, cataloging, and preparations, would probably best be handled by our WG.

1) Should we address MARC formats not currently used in Orbis (e.g. community information and classification formats)? Yes. 
2) Should we address non-MARC metadata schemes? Yes.
3) Should we address the import of records from RLIN and OCLC? Yes.
4) Should we attempt to rank the importance of features not derived from the Requirements WG list? No, leave the rating box blank.
5) Should we be worried about time restraints? No. Better to come up with as complete a document as possible; Audrey and the Migration Management
Group will edit as needed.  The cataloging demo will probably last an entire day.
6) Can we request that specific records now in Orbis or RLIN be used during the demos? Yes; holdings information will necessarily be stripped.
7) Are interactive staff-mode demos currently available at any of the vendors' websites? No.

3. Distribution of background documents

Demo WG charge [distributed]

Orbis2 Document Life Cycle [distributed]

Orbis2 Records Criteria [distributed]

Orbis 2000 Checklist for Testers [distributed]

Orbis2 home page (see Background section)

Fred Martz's notes from July vendor demos

ALA Reports
[will be on Orbis 2 home page; URL not yet ready]

MIT Cataloging Demo (demos by SIRSI & ExLbris held in late July)
[pdf file sent as attachment]

other MIT docs available through link on Orbis2 home page:
[gave username/password at meeting]

MLA Automation Requirements for Music Materials

RBMS/BSC Guide to Rare Book Records in Online Systems

4. Identification of functional categories that will structure final report

Postponed until next meeting