Attending:Marianne Burke, Bob Buckwalter, John Collins, Michael Fitzgerald, Kathy Klemperer, Lynne Schmelz (chair), Jon Rothman, Dorothy Solbrig, Mark Van Baalen, Judy Warnement, Robin Wendler (recording), Charles Willard
Absent: Dale Flecker, Rodney Goins, Carrie Kent, Ted Pappadopoulos
Guests: Diane Garner, Tracey Robinson
May 18, 1994 -- 10-12 a.m. OIS Conference Room June 15, 1994 -- 10-12 a.m. Countway Library
Kathy Klemperer presented the results of discussions within OIS to define the relationships between specifically the VINE, the Bridge, and the Harvard Home Gopher ,and more generally, between network navigational resources at Harvard. The picture which is emerging has one major node, for now probably the Harvard Home Gopher, where one would begin, and which one would use to access other navigators. Most navigators would represent an administrative unit, thus the Bridge would represent HUL, and include not only library databases but also library products such as finding aids and subject bibliographies.
Charles Willard asked who would speak for the libraries wherever decisions are made about the structuring of the higher level node. Mark Van Baalen explained the process of interest group meetings which contributed to the initial design of the Home Gopher last year, but added that no formal group has been established with responsibility for oversight of the structuring of Harvard-wide information navigators. He expects a mechanism to emerge with broad-based input feeds into high-level review, but this has yet to be worked out. Mark asked what kind of review should be done. Charles felt that whatever the mechanism, the libraries should have a role in structuring the university's information navigators at levels higher than the Bridge.
John Collins asked where library-specific navigators fit into this picture, and there was general agreement that they would be pointed to by the Bridge. Navigators such as that at Countway, which also represents the Medical School, can be pointed to both by the Bridge and by whatever menu gathers faculty-specific resources.
OIS is seeking input from the Automation Planning Committee, HAAC, SSHUSH, the Subcommittee on Bibliographic Standards and Policy, and HOLLIS Liaisons about the final set of projects which should be implemented in HOLLIS. Kathy presented a paper listing active projects, projects which have been committed but not yet begun, and other projects, many of which have already been approved by HAAC. Once all the groups have been consulted, OIS will assimilate their comments, evaluate manpower resources, and return to APC and HAAC with a plan for approval.
We should assume that
The group was asked to consider two specific factors in their evaluation of projects:
Mark Van Baalen asked Kathy to evaluate the transferability of each project to help the committee's considerations.
Charles Willard felt that it should not be a given that OIS complete those projects already underway unless they are in some measure transferable. Marianne Burke disagreed, pointing out that all projects under development have been specified, approved, and already represent a great deal of investment of staff time. She felt they should be completed. Mark Van Baalen asked whether the user comment facility could gain transferability by being moved into the Bridge. Since Carrie Kent, the HAAC member most directly involved in the UCF was not present, the group did not pursue this suggestion. Kathy asked Charles what specifically should receive a lower priority. He listed end-user reporting, course reserves and the user comment facility. It was pointed out that end-user reporting will be largely transferable and that the course reserves project is near completion.
Michael Fitzgerald noted that much of the investment in specifying these projects will be transferable in the sense that having thought about the functions we need will help us all to plan for HOLLIS II.
Robin Wendler asked whether the document delivery project listed meant user-initiated retrieval from HD (FETCHERRS), or something broader. After discussion, the group agreed that the problems with broadening the scope of the project were more political than technical, and that the time required to launch such a project might delay any implementation until too late for a reasonable payback. The consensus was to focus on the HD piece of the document delivery issue, as something which has been specified, is manageable and is politically feasible. The group felt that this limited project would give us valuable experience for when we tackle the larger issues. Several members commented on the value of this to their libraries and their constituencies.
Robin Wendler pointed out that the transferability of the new database projects will depend on what platform is used. If they are in HOLLIS, some portion of the work is transferable, but if they are on a different bibliographic server, all the work is transferable. A separate server would not provide the link to Harvard holdings, however. Charles Willard asked whether transferability was the only reason for considering using a server other than HOLLIS. Tracey said that was the main reason, but that there is also value in experimenting with alternative servers since we know we will be moving to a multiple server environment. The group expressed much interest in PsychInfo, and asked whether the auction catalog database might be a good test case for an alternate server if the Fine Arts Library has access to the Bridge.
The Large Index Searching Enhancements need a feasibility study and a recommendation on where the focus should be. Call number browse is a function we definitely want in the next system, but there was no strong sentiment that it be implemented in HOLLIS. The interface with ABLE bindery software has never been highly prioritized by HAAC, although many libraries have expressed interest. Libraries' different perceptions of what functionality is needed has made this a difficult project to define. It was recommended that we ask ABLE what system vendors they work with and consider this for the next system. The group felt that increasing the size of bibliographic, holdings, and order records is important for the next system but can wait. There was no desire to work on a Z39.50 interface to HOLLIS.
Kathy will return with a final changes proposal in June.
Diane Garner presented a proposal for prospective processing of government documents. The proposal recommends using two services, Bernan Shipping List Service to provide brief records for those items expected to be received on each shipping list to aid in check-in and claiming, and full cataloging records from Autographics Catalog Extraction Service. Harvard would profile with both Bernan and Autographics for those Item numbers and SuDoc stems received through the HCL and Law depository agreements. Autographics would match GPO cataloging with the appropriate Bernan shipping list record and supply the Bernan record number in the cataloging record to facilitate overlay of the shipping list record in HOLLIS. This process will make the entire documents processing workflow more efficient.
Michael Fitzgerald asked whether multiple cataloging records corresponding to a single shipping list record would be added to HOLLIS, for example, a multi-volume work might have records for the particular titles of the individual volumes as well as the overall title of the complete work.
There was an explanation of the details of the process, and some concern about possible duplication with firm orders of documents. The proposal was unanimously approved with one abstention. The group felt that this was a valuable project and should be given a high priority.
In early June, OIS expects to move HOLLIS (not HULPR) to 24-hour, 7 seven days a week availability, except for scheduled downtime of the mainframe as needed.
Judy Warnement expressed interest in getting an update on the OCLC TLP connection at a future meeting.