Site map
| Resource Discovery 27 February 2004 |
Meeting Minutes1. Attendance and Apologies for Absence.Present: Di Martin (chair), Stewart Brownrigg, Liz Chapman, Sarah Gerrard, John Gilby, Robert Hall, William Marsterson (Minutes), Brian Murphy, Jean Sykes. Apologies for absence: None. 2. MembershipLiz Chapman was welcomed to her first meeting. Brendan Casey had resigned from the Group due to pressure of other commitments. The Group expressed their gratitude for his contribution to their work over several years. Action 2.1 JG to remove BC from group mailing list. 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 3rd October 2003These were agreed as a correct record. 4. Matters Arising4.1 Visit a library Noted that the pilot went live on 3/12/03; that members were advised by e-mail about updating their own visitor web pages; that the Steering Group agreed a contribution of £1,250 for preparation of a further bid to JISC to develop the service. JG explained that, although JISC and UKOLN officers had been interested by a presentation of Visit a Library, the calls from JISC so far had not offered an opportunity for a bid, so the Consortium's grant had not yet been used. Other possible sources of funding were discussed and JS agreed to check whether there might be an opportunity to obtain funding from the British Library; JG agreed to check whether John Paschoud had demonstrated the software on a recent visit to the US. Actions JS, JG 4.2 Project WiLL Noted that a link had been created from the Consortium home page. 4.3 M25 Systems Team Noted that the Consortium had agreed to proposals for two years of funding for 2004/5 and 2005/6 for the Systems team in respect of M25 Consortium requirements. JG expressed thanks on behalf of the team. 5. M25 Systems Team Project Manager's Report5.1 No new connections to InforM25 had been made, but 7 new members had been contacted and the National History Museum was undergoing testing. The meeting discussed in what order the new members should be connected. It was agreed that priority should be guided by practicalities, and should go to those ready with z-servers, to save the time of the Systems team. A priority sequence was agreed in principle pending further information about the detailed work involved. The meeting also discussed whether to connect Associate members, such as Kew: it was agreed that this should also be decided pragmatically based on practical arrangements and the benefits to the Consortium. JG had set up a meeting to brief the new members and find out further practical details. Kew would also be invited to attend. 5.2 Reminders to check data for InforM25 and Visit a Library had been sent out, and some replies received already. 5.3 Sites where improvements had been made (including London South Bank, which had moved to Innopac Millennium) were noted. 5.4 Contact had been made with SIRSI over updating all M25 Unicorn Z-servers to be Bath Profile compliant. This could provide good publicity for the Consortium. 5.5 The new logo had been incorporated into the website. 5.6 Noted that in making Visit a Library live, a few bilateral schemes had been removed where the details were no longer up to date. The decision of KCL to move from the University of London access scheme to SRX was noted. 5.7 Working Groups' web pages had been updated, with old groups removed and new ones added. The CDP25 online booking form and the Disaster Management Working group's mock up pages were noted. 5.8 Non-M25 Projects Interoperability guidelines documents for 8 systems have been produced. The meeting discussed how public these could be, and whether systems vendors would be prepared to buy the guidelines for their systems. JG and JS were asked to pursue this point. Action JG, JS 5.9 Some work has been done for WiLL, to audit search types and identify where they work well. 5.10 As part of the CC-interop Project the team had been involved in a study of search behaviour undertaken by CERLIM. Di Martin noted that the findings of the CERLIM report should inform the InforM25 exit strategy. JG was asked to circulate the url of the report to members. JS noted that Inform25 appeared to be more user friendly than the other clumps. The effort in publicising the service had been effective. This should be brought to the attention of Members. Action JG 5.11 Noted consultancy in connection with SUNCAT and with the SECURe team at LSE. 6. Service Delivery Plan 2004-66.1 The meeting considered a paper from JG. Members welcomed the paper as an excellent first draft. A number of amendments and additional items for inclusion were identified. The first sentence of the section on Reporting should be broadened to include quality guidelines. It was agreed to add a preamble to draw attention to the contributions of the Systems Team beyond the core service delivery embodied in the plan, including advice and recommendations about new services, new development work and consultancy services. It was agreed to add a section on promotion and training to the plan itself. 6.2 JG was asked to provide realistic figures for the time estimates, and circulate the final draft to the group by 30th April (in time for the Steering Group on 6th May). 6.3 A disclaimer about mitigating circumstances should be included in the preamble to cover unforeseen problems which might affect service delivery. 6.4 DM said that service to existing users should take priority over adding new users; also the Plan should be made available through one mail list only. An annual performance report to the Steering Group and Consortium would service as a general way of monitoring the Plan. 6.5 JG was asked to revise the Plan in the light of these points and circulate. Action JG 7. Exit Strategy7.1 DM introduced this item asking what future developments in respect of resource discovery would affect the Consortium. Ideas were suggested by members, who were asked to investigate these further. They included:
7.2 This last point was further discussed, and broadened into a survey of member institution future plans and priorities for resource discovery. An initial short simple survey was proposed; subsequent follow-up might include visits, phone calls, and a deeper survey of specific interests. The need at this first stage was to identify trends, rather than a census, to inform the Group's consideration of future Consortium strategy. 7.3 The meeting noted that the Systems Team would have time for this after August 2004, but that the first phase of the survey was needed sooner. DM agreed to identify the questions to be asked, and bring a draft to the next meeting. It could be piloted on former members of the Group. Those identified in 7.1 were asked to report their views at the next meeting. Action DM, All 8. Web AccessibilityNoted that following work identifying the extent of difficulties in terms of disability in accessing the Website, the Systems team felt they did not have the expertise to define what was required to upgrade the pages. JS suggested asking ULCC to quote for a) checking the pages and b) upgrading them. JG noted that the InforM25 pages were live, and would have to be upgraded separately. Robert Hall indicated that the Steering Group would support spending on a consultant. It was felt that the Special Needs Working Group should not have their remit changed to cover this work, as they should be focussed on advice to Members. JS agreed to approach ULCC for a quote. Action JS 9. Date of Next Meeting14th May at LSE. 10. Any Other BusinessNo other business. WM 5.3.04 |
