SPOT Meeting Minutes 2010-01-19

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.

if using offline circ - libraries can stay using it
opt in to using check in/ check out -- need email addresses from the libraries
Action : poll for this and get this by Feb 1

    
 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 ...

Looks like there is just a configuration that needs to be changed to allow us to see the patron barcode search option, which allows you to look up a user in NRE and attach them to a request. There will always be an issue if the user does not yet exist in NRE. Well need directions for both. Assign to CSI?


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.

No update on this yet, but Kyle is going to talk with Don and other folks at OCLC tomorrow regarding ezproxy servers.


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.

OCLC had a good call on this last week, and Ed is working up a may document have done by the end of this week. Make sure this item is on the next OCLC meeting agenda.

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.

From OCLC reports this discussion went real well. Julie Nye from OCLC is working on putting together a new editions requirement sheet which she will vet with Summit on.  It was mentioned on a Worldcat Local listserv that they are going to provide the recorded audio from this meeting. Once it becomes available I will post a link here.

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