Serials & Binding Demo Group. Minutes to the Meeting—August 4, 2000
Present: Steven Arakawa, Helen Bartlett , Geraldine Burke, Rolfe Gjellstad , Elizabeth Hofsas, Fanny Hsieh, Curtis Orio, Stephanie Sherry.
Absent: Patricia Simon
We welcomed two new members to the group: Rolfe Gjellstad from the Divinity Library, concentrating on the sub-group Serials, and Helen Bartlett from the Music Library, concentrating on the sub-group Binding.
With PS & EAH scheduled for long vacations in Aug., much of the past week was spent on information gathering. Reports:
July 31. PS & SRA went over SML binding workflow. SRA will write up & distribute. Document would need supplemental additions to account for differences in dept. libraries. (SS & HB?)
Aug. 1. EAH, CO, FHH, & SRA went over SML checkin workflow. SRA will write up & distribute. Document would need supplemental additions to account for differences in dept. libraries.
Aug. 1. EAH & SRA met with Edita Baradi, chair of the Acquisitions group to discuss distribution of overlapping demo assignments. Though some overlap is apparent, it was decided that the Acquisitions Group would tackle all payment questions, including prepayment, ordering, blanket orders, and standing orders. Payment on receipt is an area acknowledged to constitute an overlap. NOTIS merges checkin & payment. Although NOTIS is by no means the only or the best model for potential new systems--e.g. III separates the functions--SDG might still need to include payment at least as an option as part of the checkin process. However, by and large payments will largely be the jurisdiction of Acquisitions. It has also been acknowledged that payment questions might differ between the Dept. Libraries, so the lines of communication regarding idiosyncrasies must be maintained
Aug. 2. EAH, CO & SRA went over SML claiming workflow. There was also a long and useful digression on binding preparations workflow for serials. SRA will write up & distribute. Document would need supplemental additions to account for differences in dept. libraries.
Aug. 3. Some members of the serials and preparations subgroups visited the Yale Law Library to see a live demonstration of Innovative Interfaces (III) presented by Jo-anne Giammattei.
At the previous week's meeting, various members were asked to review CWG system requirements for groups other than Records for functionality aspects we would either need to incorporate in our demos or which we would need to liaison with the appropriate demo groups. The systems requirements for Acquisitions were not assigned because of the anticipated meeting with Edita. Reports on Assignments from the last meeting:
-With regards to "system requirements for Systems"—SRA reports that there is nothing for Serials to Demo for.
-Readers: how current issues & monographic series, & latest issue locations display in the OPAC are all issues difficult to separate from technial services serials processing. Flexibility with searches (specifically, searches unable to be performed in NOTIS) is also of interest.
-Business: Are convergence services available? i.e. will information (pay statements, "universal messages", etc.) migrate from NOTIS to the new system?
-Reports: It is desirable to generate reports without an intermediary (as is currently the practice with NOTIS/Systems Office), and judging from our visit to the Law Library, this is well within the realm of possibility. We may need to consider whether specific serials processing reports might be better handled by Serials Demo, e.g. the equivalent of the expired action date report. One of the things discovered in the course of the meeting was the extent to which the smaller libraries use this report. Besides Claiming, the new system should be able to eliminate the need for many statistics currently being calculated on "paper." A claiming report Demo similar to the MIT model will be stressed.
Both Kline Library and Geology Library have forwarded "problematic" titles for our perusal.
More detailed workflow documentation on systems other than Voyager has not turned up, at least on the Web.
Binding: <Although PS had already left on vacation, from discussion above she seemed satisfied with LARS reports. > The "binding module" as demonstrated on III was not much more than a status tracking mechanism. Law Library uses LARS as well but there is no interface with the III software. However, the software did include a label generating program.
Stephanie’s report on Binding issues pertaining to the Dept. Libraries—practices differ from library to library, but those that use an automated system use LARS. Issues to be taken into consideration:
-Can a label printer be networked for multiple work stations?
-Does type of printer matter?
-Can the system handle different types of labels (e.g. SML uses SELIN, Divinity uses Avery labels)?
-Is an interface between LARS and the vendor software possible?
Following the charge instructions, the group will work on the following assignments:
SRA, CO, GB: draft demo requirments for checkin & claiming.
Stephanie and Helen: draft demo requirements for Binding and Labeling
Fanny and Rolfe—draft demo requirements for MARC holdings and Title Changes
SRA asked that initially 1 or 2 demo requirements for each group be written up and forwarded to him; he will run these by Audrey to make sure we are following the charge instructions correctly for content and format.
SRA will also provide a Working Checklist for Desired Functionality based on the CWG Records system requirements draft, information gathering done in the past week, & comments at the past 2 meetings. For updating purposes, perhaps a copy should be put on the Web? He will also go over title change workflow with EAH after the meeting; workflow will be documented & distributed.
There will be no meeting next week; members will be expected to work on drafting their sections of the document during the next 2 weeks. We will meet on Friday Aug. 18 9:30-11:00 to review progress.
Curtis Orio for SBDWG