Resource Discovery Meeting Minutes

NOTE: The following minutes are unapproved and will be formally agreed at the next meeting of the working group.

1. Welcome, Apologies for Absence and Membership Update

Present: William Marsterson (Chair - WM), Gavin Beattie GB), Catriona Cannon (CC), John Gilby (Minutes - JG), Robert Hall (RH), Rosemary Lynch (RL), Brian Murphy (BM), Marion Peulevé (MP).

Apologies: Stewart Brownrigg (Kent), Maureen Wade (MW).

2. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

The minutes from 21 July 2006 were approved subject to the correction of two typos: Action 6.1 "...Administrative..." and Action 6.2 should be JG & MW - see below.

3. Action Update and Matters Arising

Actions and matters arising from the previous meeting held on 21 July 2006 are summarised below:

• Action 3.1 - JG, action continues for plotting usage statistics for the 4 services.
• Action 4.1 - JG had fed back user interface comments to the designers and noted that accessibility of the user interfaces was an ongoing issue.
• Action 4.2 - WM had emailed M25 directors regarding the subject list mini-project (see update below) Action complete.
  
• Action 4.3 - action continues as new Action 3.2 JG to carry out further work on InforM25 'Landscaping' document.
• Action 4.4 - action ongoing - JG to continue looking at Z-Z Middleware options for InforM25 and report to group as necessary.
• Action 6.1 - WM had completed edits to group Action Plan for 2006-7. Action complete.
• Actio 6.2 - JG & MW had drafted a Risk Analysis document that was tabled at the meeting (see below under Item 6). Action complete.
• Action 6.3 - JG had updated the group'sTerms of Reference on the M25 website. Action complete.
• Action 8.1 - A sub-group had met to discuss the resource discovery implications of scanning & digital repositories and the discussion will be reported to the M25 Steering Group on 28th
  September. Action complete.

4. M25 Systems Team Manager's Report

JG invited questions and comments on his previously circulated report, there were none. JG then went on to briefly report about two recent meetings he had attended:

• JG had met recently with the LLDA, MLA and the Inspire Project regarding how to transfer London library data (held on the InforM25 and WiLL services) to FindIt, the Inspire online service. Various technical options were discussed for both short and long term solutions. FindIt (and the Cornucopia database the service uses) is based on the UK Archival Thesaurus (UKAT) and 84 (from 101) M25 subject terms could be mapped to UKAT. JG commented that he thought that UKAT could also be mapped to LCSH and therefore he proposed that UKAT be adopted as the thesaurus from which M25 subjects should be chosen, particularly as it would increase potential interoperability with WiLL, FindIt and AIM25 (see below). The group agreed that InforM25 adopt UKAT.
• JG had also met with representatives from the AIM25 project/service regarding a potential bid, part of which would resurrect the idea of linking from Search-catalogues to AIM25 in order to highlight archive collections to InforM25 users. JG had estimated that the development would involve 2-3 weeks work for the Systems Team. The group approved the development subject to obtaining the required funding.

JG then demonstrated the revised InforM25 static HTML pages and service user interfaces. Specific issues discussed are listed below:

FAQ pages - discussions on whether to refer to pages as FAQs or Help were inconclusive but the need for consistency in page header graphics, headings and links was identified.

Find-a-library - the group approved the new map graphic and way in which the subjects were selected. It was also agreed that it was not necessary to include the individual library address and phone number in the complete list of libraries as removal would make the web page much shorter with subsequent less scrolling.

Visit-a-library - The finalised header graphic was approved, the new styles not yet being visible on the service.

Search-catalogues - It was suggested that the results (brief bibliographic records) should appear above the hits per institution summary table to avoid users having to scroll down. An alternative suggestion was to look at removing the summary table from the results page and offering it as a link that users may follow. The group felt it was beneficial to keep the error table at the bottom of the page but to remove the reference to it from higher up the page. Another area for possible improvement was how to help users find the items they are looking for in the results set(s).

ULS - The user interfaces were approved. The group also discussed the possibility of expanding the ULS to incorporate more M25 libraries.

5. Plans for InforM25 Re-launch and Promotion

JG spoke about ideas for the re-launch of InforM25 during the Autumn with ideas from the Advocacy Working Group and others:

• Developing an online tutorial
• Service screenshots that M25 library staff could incorporate into research-skills-type presentations although it was acknowledged that this was too late for this academic year
• Press releases
• A new flyer aimed at end users - possibly one side to give details of the services and the other more 'how InforM25 can help you'
• A new User Guide based on the current ULS User Guide - aimed at library staff
• A competition to find items or information within the services
• Case studies - 'How Inform25 helped me with my research' - possibly on website or in a newsletter 

The group thought that all the ideas were worthwhile although there was some concern as to whether an online tutorial would be used much. The group agreed for JG to continue liaising with the Advocacy Working Group on promotion and in particular, to seek their advice on where to promote InforM25.

There was also a discussion about how the live services would be 'switched over' to the new interfaces/look & feel, with a "big bang" being preferred if technically feasible.

Action 5.1 JG to continue liaising with the AWG on InforM25 promotion and to investigate how to switch services to the new interfaces.

6. AOB

JG tabled a copy of the draft Risk Analysis document edited by himself and MW. The group agreed to send JG comments by the end of October 2006 and also suggested changing probability and impact to numerical values and then the inclusion of an additional column showing the product of probability and impact to help identify risks requiring attention.

Action 6.1 All to send JG additional risks and comments/changes to risks already identified.

Action 6.2 JG & MW to look at actions arising from identifies risks to see what could be done to reduce the ristks.

7. Future Meetings

The next meetings are at 2pm, LSE Library on 24 November 2006 and 23 February 2007.