Meeting Minutes

Present: Stewart Brownrigg, Brendan Casey, Sarah Gerrard, John Gilby, Robert Hall, William Marsterson, Di Martin (Chair), Brian Murphy.

Apologies for absence: Denis Heathcote, Jean Sykes.

1. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2003.

These were agreed.

2. Matters arising from the minutes

2.1 Administrative arrangements

The minutes had been circulated to members for correction and subsequently put on the Consortium web site by JG who had also established an email distribution list for the group ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ). DM had submitted a report of the Group's work to the Steering Group.

2.2 Terms of reference

These had been revised following discussion, circulated and put on the Consortium web site.

2.3 Priorities for M25 Systems Team

(i) JG had circulated notes and reported on actions taken on the priorities for his team as agreed at the last meeting:

AET. Most of the data entry had been completed. There were a few queries and library contacts had not yet been asked to check the data.
New logo. Some work had been done but further progress depended on the Advocacy Group's plans for redesign of the home page. New server for InforM25/ULS. The work was nearly complete.
Newsletter. Produced in March.
AIM25 linking. Discussions had commenced on how to link InforM25 searching to AIM25. One of the difficulties was that InforM25 results were at the item level, AIM25 results at the collection level. Thus completely integrated searching and results were thought not to be helpful.
InforM25. No new libraries had been added but it should be possible to include TVU shortly.
ULS. Occasional problems still occur with the server. Birkbeck records have not yet been moved to the live service due to an unresolved problem. A survey is being carried out on how libraries handle electronic journals as inclusion in the ULS might mis-inform users.
Consolidation. The System Team feels that some priority should be given to consolidating the current suite of live services.

(ii) JG also reported on non-Consortium work:

Bath Profile project. Work was on hold while release 2.0 awaited ISO approval. The new target was December 2003. The JISC had provided funds to extend the project and asked the team to hold a Bath Profile event in the summer and to document the AIM25/InforM25 linking project.
Project WiLL. Progressing well with launch probably in July.
CC-Interop. Progressing well.

(iii) Guidance on priorities

DM suggested that now that the Team was delivering services more than projects the targets were less measurable. For next year benchmarks for the Team might be appropriate to help ensure Consortium members saw a good return for their subscriptions.
JG indicated that maintenance took time and there was much scope for implementing minor improvements to InforM25. There was a need for this to be communicated to representatives.
SENDA/disability issues for web pages. JG indicated that he needed advice from the Consortium on what needed to be done. Both SB and WM suggested that one of their staff might be able to provide initial guidance. JG agreed to circulate the relevant urls to members of the WG. Action: JG/SB/WM

2.4 Report to Consortium meeting, January 2003

Noted that DM had produced a report for the Consortium meeting which had been circulated to WG members.

3. Access Eligibility Tool

JG demonstrated the work done so far and tabled a note on areas for development. The database structure was in place and could be modified. Data needed to be checked. Comments had been received on the length of the results presented. The Open University had expressed interest in the product.
The Group agreed that the results display should be modified before the AET was launched.
The Group noted that if the AET was used after a search had been carried out the results would be less lengthy than prior to a search; it was desirable to have both approaches available to users. Thus InforM25 searching and using AET should be integrated.
The Group felt it desirable for a user to be able to enquire about access arrangements at a specific institution.
The Group also agreed that the AET was high priority and it was desirable that progress should not await the new financial year.
JG indicated that his team were able to define what needed to be done at the technical level, carry out web work on a redesigned results page and test the development; programming effort would need to come from outside the team.
Agreed that a small group be formed:
1. to look into the detail of the improvements required, and the processes and timescales to achieve them,
2. to take a user-focused approach - prior to and after an InforM25 search,
3. to consider incorporating 'best entitlement' i.e. prioritising borrowing in the presentation of results,
4. to consider the best format for the presentation of results.
Agreed that the small group should plan for a timescale for going live within 2 to 3 months.
Agreed that SG convene the small group and that other members include, subject to willingness, Caroline Lloyd (Birkbeck), Anna Bosch (City University), Ben Charlton (Kent) and JG who would make arrangements for the first meeting. Action: SG/JG
The Group thanked the M25 Systems Team for their work to date.

4. British Library

JG reported that now that the British Library was a member of the Consortium it was necessary to consider how to link it in to the web-based services. He felt it was impracticable to add the BL to InforM25 as the results of a search would dominate over the holdings of any other library. Also the BL would not fit well with the Find a Library service.
JG also reported that the Advocacy Group was planning a redesign of the top level pages and it was likely there would be fewer links on the home page which might have broad links to 'resource discovery and 'access'.
The Group agreed that the BL should have its own link from the resource discovery area. It was agreed to consider the matter further before inserting links to other catalogues e.g. Copac. DM agreed to find out the timescales involved in the redesign of the Consortium's web pages. Action: JG/DM

5. RSLG report

The Group considered the Executive Summary and recommendations of the RSLG report. It was recognised that it was not yet out for consultation pending its consideration by the funding councils. The Collaboration and Partnership Group would also consider the report. The Group agreed to suggest a meeting with representatives of the funding body in due course to ensure they were aware of the Consortium's activities in the region. Following were the initial comments of the Group (comments would also be sought from DH and JS):

SUNCAT. It would be useful if the national facility provided searching by region so that it could take the place of the ULS.
UKNUC. InforM25 could play a role as the idea was to provide access to physical and virtual databases. Linking in to borrowing status information was desirable.
Review of standards for online resources - could be helpful to the Consortium.
A new national initiative on licensing of electronic resources would be welcomed.
Access tools: there could be development projects in which the Consortium might wish to be involved.

6. Action plan for 2003-04

6.1 A position statement, prepared by JG, on existing liaisons with other organisations, groups and initiatives had been noted under Minute 2.3 Priorities for the Systems Team.

6.2 MASC25. An emailed report by Anne Chesher of UCL was noted.

6.3 Objectives for 2003-04. It was agreed that much of the work was ongoing. It was planned that the AET would be launched and would need to be maintained. A survey of institutions to update knowledge of library systems and related services was desirable.

6.4 Budget for 2003-04. It was noted that the main bid had been submitted to the Steering Group. Copies were tabled. There was a need to add to add milestones and take on board other matters raised in the previous meeting. For the work of the group £2k would be needed tocarry out the survey proposed above.

6.5 Key objectives for 2004-05. Discussion was deferred.

7. Next meeting

DM would circulate for dates in May. Venue to be LSE if possible.

BM 8.4.03

[ Back ]