Serials Demo Working Group
Minutes to the Meeting - July 28, 2000
Present: Steven Arakawa, Geraldine Burke, Elizabeth Hofsas, Fanny Hsieh, Curtis Orio, Patricia Simon, Jeanette Murdock, Stephanie Sherry, and Audrey Novak (visitor).
Audrey gave a quick overview of the Orbis2 project, much of which is included at: http://www.library.yale.edu/orbis2/public/orbis2.htm
There are 5 Criteria Work Groups, and each group has described situations listed as: (Essential, Important or Desirable).
Environmental statements are being written for each group. Documents are to be forwarded to the vendors by August 22. Drafts are already on the Web.
All 4 companies that visited Yale in the late spring are still viable candidates. These comprise the "short list" of vendors. They will each provide demos in the fall for 4-5 days. Yale staff is encouraged to visit these demos. Hands on demonstrations, however, will be limited to a evaluation groups working from the demo documentation created by the demo groups.
Migration Management Group (MMG) is creating documents known as "Threshold requirements".
Nine Demo Situation Work Groups have been created to come up with both basic and exceptional examples for each vendor. Dept. libraries will be contacted for input.
Vendors can load certain records. We should select specific records to be demoed as need be. It is understood that we might have to "create" specific situations. Members are advised to compile records that emerge from daily work that might be deemed relevant.
Demo specifics may end up in the contract with the vendor.
Audrey Novak confirmed that we expect serial holdings to be converted at the time of implementation, that in the new system serial holdings will be a combination of summary (recon) and detailed (current); that we do expect to use predictive checkin; that there are issues involving virtual (web) serials that we need to take into consideration, e.g. issue links; that export & load/store of MARC holdings is a systems issue rather than ours. Other overlapping areas are being worked out.
We were encouraged to use the MIT (amongst others) document, mindful that we might need to tinker with local practices. SRA plans to use the MIT document as a template.
Group reviewed the draft "to-do" list. Question was raised about whether there might be items in system requirements other than Records that need to be taken into consideration. Question was raised as to whether the NOTIS "current issues in PRR <or elsewhere>" set up is likely to continue after the migration or whether a discrete location statement is needed for the temporary location of each title in a reading room or area. Tentatively, we may need to request demo of both options.
Assignments: EAH, SRA, CO will meet to go over current checkin workflow. SRA will assign some members to review the other CWG system requirements and to do some literature review. GB will survey science libraries for serials issues, and for possible titles to be used for the demos.
SRA will meet with Pat Simon & Stephanie Sherry after the meeting to discuss automation in binding and work out additional assignments.
Everyone now has Acrobat and at least viewing capability with Excel/MSWord so all documentation can be reviewed in these formats.
The meeting time might be changed from Friday, 9:00-10:30 to 9:30-11:00. We will go with the weekly meeting for the time being, but rely a lot on breakout group meetings. SRA will determine if room 410 is available for the extra half hour.
Submitted by Curtis Orio for the Serials/Binding Demo Group