SPOT Meeting Minutes 2010-01-04

Thank you very much for the requirements for fulfillment at all levels.
Back in June when we had a meeting with U Washington and OCLC and we uncovered an issue that led the Alliance to put a stop to the version 1 upgrade. That issue was: For our members that had WCL - they would have to use the RTM message to NRE for both their consortial and ILL requests. There was no way to have the group and ILL delivery options different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, Willamette University has WCL below is how they are currently set up, how they would have been set up if June would have happened, and how they would be set up once these requirements are actualized

Current:
Level One -Local holdings - Patron authenticates to local system to place hold on Local System Record
Level Two -Group holdings - Patron authenticates through EZP, sent to Zportal, the Zportal requests are processed in NRE
Level Three-World Wide holdings -first they hit the local resolver, and if it determines the library dose not own it, then the patron can choose the link on that page to the Illiad server, which is an openurl link, just carried over from what they passed in first.

June 's solution that was not accepted
Level One -Local holdings - Patron authenticates to local system to place hold on Local System Record
Level Two -Group holdings - Patron authenticates through EZP, WC request form is displayed, RTM message sent to NRE for Processing
Level Three-World Wide holdings -Patron authenticates through EZP, WC request form is displayed, RTM message sent to NRE for Processing hits 'No Rota' and the requests are sent via RTM to ILLiad as a new requests

The reason this solution was not accepted, is that a number of our libraries charge for ILL. Automatically routing requests to a workflow that incurs substantial charges without notifying the patron or securing approval is highly undesirable. The problem cannot be solved by waiving ILL charges because some libraries fund their ILL departments on a cost recovery basis.

For this reason, Navigator must allow libraries to individually choose whether to use a single request process and automatically transfer those that can't be filled within the consortia to ILLiad or make it obvious when individual requests will result in charges so the patron has an opportunity to decide if she still wants the item.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the requirements sent, we are unclear if will allow members that have WCL to have the following workflow:

Level One -Local holdings - Patron authenticates to local system to place hold on Local System Record
Level Two -Group holdings - Patron authenticates through EZP, WC request form is displayed, RTM message sent to NRE for Processing
Level Three-World Wide holdings -Local resolver *OR* (if ILLiad and eventually WCRS) Patron authenticates through EZP, WC request form is displayed, and is sent via RTM to ILLiad

We believe that the below section allows us to have different fulfillment buttons and delivery options at each level, but we want to be sure we are reading the requirements correctly.

Update: 

This is really in Mindy's court from OCLC to get back to us on, she has seen our responses to the potential problems outlined above, and if there will be any mandate for us to make this move to this authentication with the February upgrade. As of right now it does not look like the current set up planned will work for all our members.

Ed will verify that we do not have drop the zportal on the Feb. upgrade.

 

2. Radio button - sticky- Would like a date. In staff processing in NRE as you assign long term loan or short term loan, we would like the radio button to hold the last thing that was done. So if you are processing a number of short term loans you do not always have to reset it to short term loan.

    Update: 

    Supposedly not that hard of a fix, Ralph will have done by Janaury 8th.

3. Deleting Patrons -- how did it go over the holidays
    
    Update: 

     Ralph removed a large number of patrons from the NRE database over the break. The current patron privacy chop, which should be running nightly has not been run yet. Ralph will run this program by January 15th, he will also verify that this will not mess with any statistical reports which are gathered at the end of each month. Expired patrons will be removed on a monthly basis. Unlike our old Summit there is no real way to make sure that our patron numbers are exact same as NRE, however Ralph will create a jasper report that will shown number of patrons by institution by the end of January.

OCLC UPDATE:    
The "Stats Hub" does collect the patron barcode, category and department(not used). These fields are optional and can be ommited. The patron barcode and category are transfered and held in the "Stats Hub" database. If I understand correctly Summit does not want the patron barcode transfered, if this is correct I will disable sending the barcode.  AA: Topic for SPOT Team meeting

 

User count before delete - 604,351

User count of users who never made a request that were deleted- 547,450

Current active user count - 56,901

4. Telnet - Ron was sent an email that had a page from the III manual -- could we use it?

    Update: 

    John was on the call today for Ron, and we had a good discussion on how the telnet checkin should work. Rick at Lewis & Clark has sent Ron and John screen shots and a write up of how the flow should go.


5. New Rota -- is it live? 

   Update:

    New rota is live, and by mid day we have noticed some increases at some institutions.

6. ILLiad 8

    Update: Both Ralph and Ed did not think there would be any conflicts/problems with Illiad 8. It uses the same method of transferring the request information to both systems.

7. Can we get a monthly report on the monitor system?

    Update: Ralph will look at the possibility of this by the end of February.


8. Jasper stats vs. Nav stats - why are they different? 

    Update: Ralph will follow up with Bill by January 8th and he will let the rest of the SPOT group know the reason.


Any Updates:


A. EST time addition. - We know it will not happen soon - is there a time range we can have

  Update: Ralph will follow up seeing if its possible to modify the xlst files to just include the text, by Jan. 22nd.

B. Ralph writing up a solution for staff requesting.  We'll have to talk to him for an update. Also, if staff requesting where should we put the volume information so it gets passed through the CG.

Ralph - Mary Ann is working on this, and potentially it was in the original manual. Believe to be done and should.---Any update on when we will receive this 

    
 Update: Ralph and Mary Ann have sent a copy of the manual to Anaya and Kyle who shared section on this with SPOT. SPOT members have noticed that manual screen display is different than our current staff interface. Anya is going to follow up with Ralph on discrepancies. AA--done- will take care of ...

D. Status of ezproxy - Jennifer said someone was writing this up.

   Update: Kyle is going to contact Don Hemperian (OCLC), but from on the OCLC web site they are not yet offering this as a hosted option.

F. Editions follow up : "OCLC: provide Alliance with an update on plans during November" action items from the CALL to ACTION CALL on NOV 11 - Needs to have user interface mock ups, the current edition of your group. No pictures on this. Search display results, All I want is this edition or any related edition in our group. Then NRE Will know what to look for. Will we be able to see some pictures (Anya) - Ed will circulate the document.  Ed is aiming to get specs for editions thing by end of week.12/14/09-- When will we get these documents

     Update: Ed has the specs on this, but since it effects so many areas in the program the specs need to be sent around for a full corporate review. Comments are supposed to be back to Ed by the 18th of January. Which means by our Feb 1st call we may have something on this. Just for sure nothing on this until after mid winter.


G. PUA/VP - OCLC: provide Alliance with an agenda and details on what is planned for ALA- action items from the CALL to ACTION CALL on NOV 11-- recieved the agenda -sent notes back any question on those notes - will there be teleconference capabilities

Update: This is really a Christa item, who was not able to make the call. On a related note, SPOT will now make these agendas and notes available to ed and Ralph at OCLC so they can edit, and add to as needed. We will always try and have these updated roughly about a week out from the meeting.

Update(ED): There will be phone conferencing available for ALA meeting but not video.

H. Confirm that Summit locations do not want to transfer patron barcode to "Stats Hub".