Resource Discovery Meeting Minutes

1. Welcome, Apologies and Membership Update

Present: William Marsterson (Chair - WM), Catriona Cannon (CC), Liz Chapman (EAC), John Gilby (Minutes - JG), Robert Hall (RH), Di Martin (DM), Brian Murphy (BM), Jean Sykes (JS).

Apologies for absence: Stewart Brownrigg, Robert Kiley.

WM welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the previous meeting held on 4 March 2005 were approved.

3. Action Update and Matters Arising

Actions from the previous meeting are summarised below:

• Action 4.1, costing the Open URL and Z39.50 access developments to "Search catalogues" is ongoing. (New Action 3.1)
• Actions 5.1 & 5.2 Complete, see under Item 5.
• Action 6.1 Complete, see under Item 7.
• Action 10.1 Complete, July meeting arranged.

Under Matters Arising, DM referred to the discussions with Google and queried whether it was within the group's remit to make the M25 library catalogues available to Google on an individual basis. This gave rise to further discussion and it was noted that both JISC and the BL were interested in their collections being more visible. The group agreed that access to the catalogues via Google would be of interest and that the group ought to monitor activities in this area. Action 3.2 JS to alert Rachel Bruce to the interest of the M25 Consortium in pursuing possible M25 partnership with Google via JISC.

JG informed the group that the library system vendor consultancy mentioned at the previous meeting was still likely and that he would forward details of the amount of work to the group when received.

4. M25 Systems Team Manager's Report

JG highlighted key points from his report covering the period from 25 February 2005 to 29 April 2005. These are listed below:

• JG has actively been chasing working group chairs to update their group's minutes on the website.
• JG has met with the new CPD25 Administrator to introduce him to the website.
• A revised FAQ web page was demonstrated - JG explained that some of the FAQ pages contain lists of institutional names and that now, the data comes directly from the M25 database and is thus easier to update.
• The "Visit a library" service was now much better having had a considerable amount of work carried out to standardise data entries for the national and local access schemes. The opportunity was also taken to revise the results pages, reducing the amount of text on the screen and removing the word 'pilot'. The group approved of these changes.
• Kew, Sussex and TVU are now on the "Search catalogues" service giving an impressive total of 41 catalogues. JG is chasing APU, RCN and Royal Society of Chemistry regarding their Z-servers.
• Work continues with installing new Z39.50 clients for "Search catalogues" and the ULS.
• New data for the ULS had been received for half the institutions and the others were being regularly chased.
• JG acknowledged the comments about the ULS handed to him via EAC/UCL at the last meeting and stated that a number of the suggestions for improvements could be possible once the new Z-client had been installed. EAC added that the comments/suggestions were from end users, not librarians. Action 4.1 JG to invite comments on the services at the Consortium AGM and in the group's report to the AGM.

M25 Server
JG explained that the server is now three years old and its next business day support has expired. The LSE Library IT Team have recently received a quote for extending the warranty for an extra year at a cost of £1,500. New server hardware would cost in the region of £3,000 and associated with this would be the cost in effort to install it (estimated at an additional £1,000). A new server would have an inclusive three year warranty, be faster, have greater processing power and also have installed a newer version of the operating system. JG sought the view of the group as to whether they considered a new server a good idea and if so, then the proposal would need to go to the Steering Group as there was currently no allowance for this in the Consortium's budget.

RH outlined the proposed budgetary process for working group budgets for 2005/06. JS commented that the server was more a Systems Team expense rather than a group expense. WM & JG suggested that there were no anticipated group expenses requiring a budget for next year.

DM raised the issue of the relationship of the server (cost) to the exit strategy for InforM25. This prompted further detailed discussion of possible ways ahead which are summarised below:

• Three choices:
  1. Host InforM25 and M25 websites elsewhere
  2. Pay £1,500 for another year's warranty
  3. Obtain new server
• Group agreed that extending the warranty was not cost effective.
• Group agreed to defer decision until the July meeting where budgetary issues will be discussed further.
• Group agreed that budget of £4,000 is included in 2005/06 budget pending further discussion.

A number of actions arose:
Action 4.2 JG to talk to the LSE Library IT Team to see whether they could host the M25 services and likely cost of this.
Action 4.3 RH to contact the Treasurer and Steering Group to ensure the new server cost is in the budget for 2005/06.

Usage Statistics Work
JG stated that progress with the usage statistics work had met with difficulties as the expected programming effort was unfortunately no longer available. JG had discussed the situation with JS, Neil Prockter (Consultant Programmer) and with the LSE Library IT Team who have experience in generating LSE Library statistics. A number of options were considered and JG then described and illustrated an alternative solution. The statistics work splits logistically into two parts and these are outlined below:

1. Static web page statistics - it is (and was originally) proposed to use Webalizer software to produce usage data for static web pages within the three M25 domains. A copy of the software has already been installed on the M25 server and has been configured to look at the m25.ac.uk domain. Much more detailed configuration will be necessary to produce the required amount of detail.
2. "Search catalogues" and ULS services - The original plan for the usage statistics associated with the Z39.50 searching services was to create bespoke software that processed searching logs and created customised graphical displays. A workable alternative would be to use the same searching logs but to process the data using the pivot tables function within Excel. Once set up, pivot tables would be able to graphically display the usage data specified and over varying time periods. Although the tables are essentially an Excel file and would be set up with limited access, snapshots can be taken in the form of images which could then be published at regular intervals on the website. An important activity for both the originally intended bespoke software and the proposed Excel pivot tables is recording the necessary searching logs. This process is being incorporated in the previously approved work to change/update the Z39.50 clients used by "Search catalogues" and the ULS.

The group agreed that this approach looked promising and that it did not require much specific programming effort. Following discussion it was decided that JG could carry out the Webalizer and pivot table work but with the priority on getting data on how much the searching services within InforM25 are being used. If possible, some indication of usage should be available for the next RDWG meeting in July. JG explained how he prioritises tasks with respect to the Service Delivery Plan and the group agreed that the statistics work should be second-line after the high priority tasks in the Service Delivery Plan.

5. Consultancy Study on Future Resource Discovery Requirements

WM introduced this item and reminded members of the survey on InforM25 and future resource discovery requirements carried out last year. This gave rise to an ITT for some consultancy written by DM which was sent to four potential bidders. Two bids were received and were assessed by BM and JG and the bid from Information Management Associates (IMA) chosen as it addressed the issues the group were most interested in.

BM and JG had already met with IMA to go through the bid and clarify the work packages:

1. Desk research - analysis of the RDWG Survey results
2. Key informant interviews - a number of 1:1 interviews at senior level of a mix of M25 institutions plus the LLDA and ALM London.
3. Creation of forward strategy statements
4. Focus Group to look at forward strategy statements
5. Project Final Report

BM stated that the focus group venues were beginning to be arranged and that the consultancy is planned to be completed in time to discuss the outcomes at the next RDWG meeting in July. There was some concern about getting enough focus group attendees and suggestions that attendees should include user services type librarians who are on the front line. It is also preferable that the focus groups and interviews have people that are up to speed with what resource discovery services might be needed or available in the future.

6. Review of Assigned Areas

WM listed the previously assigned areas and invited comments on whether there were any changes required. Any news or changes in the areas are listed below:

• JG - SUNCAT and the ULS - no further news. Action 6.1 JG to ask SUNCAT for any information as to when the ULS might be supplanted.
• JS - RLN and a National Catalogue - no further news as RLN is slow in getting started.
• RH - WiLL and the London Portal - Work on the London portal will incorporate WiLL
• EAC - e-print repositories and Metadata - group agreed that EAC cover this area as UCL is a leading institution on these issues.
• BM - Members Priorities for Services - covers the current consultancy activities.
• DM - E-learning & Managing Learning Object for Academics
• To be allocated - Commercial Search Engines
• To be allocated - RDN

7. Digital Repositories Update

The UCL-led M25 bid, SWARM25, unfortunately failed in the recent JISC call. Feedback will be sought from JISC to inform future bids. EAC recorded her thanks to those involved in getting the bid completed and noted that partners were chosen pragmatically due to the short time scale. The group recorded its thanks to Martin Moyle (UCL) for bringing the bid together. The University of London Vice Chancellor's fund bid to extend Sherpa-LEAP had been successful as had a bid to JISC for Shibbo-LEAP. JS commented that overall, there was quite a lot of experience with repositories building up within the Consortium.

8. Advocacy Working Group Update

JG gave a verbal update to the group on progress with the web review and explained that the current tasks were directed to writing a brief in sufficient detail for a designer. JG also announced that the Steering Group had agreed plans for a quarterly e-bulletin and that the AWG would be more involved in producing the M25 Annual Report. Action 8.1 JG to feedback to the AWG that the outcomes from the future resource discovery consultancy will need to be promoted.

EAC reported that she had spoken at the recent CILIP London AGM on academic libraries in London and promoted the Consortium to attendees, many of them being from the public library sector.

9. AOB

JG detailed some recent email exchanges with Fiona O'Brien (LLDA) and Gordon Dunsire (CDLR), involving Collection Level Descriptions (CLD) and believed there were some discussions ongoing with the Collaboration & Partnership group too. In summary:

• Plans to migrate LLiL to Inspire
• Inspire will use Cornucopia for CLDs - i.e. both schema and storage of the data
• Varying views on Cornucopia and its interoperability with other IE systems and role in resource discovery
• MLA has set up a Collection Description service and associated mailing list
• Possible opportunity to look at M25 CLDs (on Find-a-library) and possibly bring them and other London CLDs closer together
• Possibly look at usefulness of an AET-type tool for Inspire, others ?
• Possibly look at SCONE

DM commented that this was a difficult area and that JG was right to bring it to the attention of the group. DM also added that it would be worth following up the reference to the AET and Inspire. It was agreed that nothing should be done with CLDs at the present time but that the issue should be re-visited at some point in the future.

WM raised the issue of the forthcoming Consortium AGM and the various group reports required. It was suggested that the report should make reference to the IMA consultancy to promote involvement. Action 9.1 JG to ask Maureen Wade/Madura Rasaratnam about when they would like the annual Systems Team report against the service delivery plan and also to liaise with WM regarding the group's report to the Consortium AGM.

10. Future Meetings

These will be arranged at the July 2005 meeting

J Gilby, 2 June 2005.