OPAC/Gateway Configuration Group
Notes from the October 18, 1999 meeting

Attending: Lynn Brown, Karen Calhoun, Elaine Engst, Philip Herold, Pat Schafer, Ed Weissman, George Kozak

1. Web Voyage
   The Web Voyage/NOTIS Implementation Team, George, Fred, and Philip, met and looked at the NOTIS catalog through the WebVoyage client using configurations developed by the University of Connecticut. The response time with WebVoyage was slower than with Ameritech's WebPac client. There are a number of issues that will need to be looked at if we decide to use WebVoyage as the Web front end to the Notis OPAC. The Team is waiting for CIT to move PacLink to a new CICS Y2K region to determine if this will eliminate the crashes that occur when keyword searches result in large result sets. If the move eliminates the crashes, the Team will determine whether WebPac or WebVoyage is a better choice. The OPAC/Gateway Configuration Group agreed that the top priority is to implement a stable Web interface. We will recommend the use WebVoyage if it offers equivalent or better functionality and if the effort to configure WebVoyage helps us with Voyagers OPAC implementation.
   
2. Issues from the Orientation Training Sessions
   The OPAC/Gateway Configuration Group discussed several issues we need to address:
   
   1. Multiple interfaces:
      Voyager offers three options for an OPAC interface--Web (WebVoyage), Windows, and ASCII (telnet). The Group will configure WebVoyage but should we also configure the Windows and/or ASCII interface? The Windows interface is highly configurable and the configuration files reside on individual work stations so concern was expressed about providing proper user support for this interface. We identified reference and instruction staff as key stakeholders since they have primary responsibility for training and support. Lynn agreed to contact other Voyager sites to learn about how they dealt with this issue. If we can make a decision about this before the OPAC Configuration training begins on November 30, we should be able to make better use of this two-day session.
      
   2. Integration of the Library Gateway Networked Resources functionality into Voyager:
      The decision about whether to integrate the Library Gateway Networked Resources functionality into Voyager has both technical and practical considerations. Someone who understands the Gateway's networked resources technical underpinnings must learn enough about Voyager to be able to advise the Team on how best to proceed. Ed will follow-up.
      
   3. Documentation:
      The Team needs to have a member whose primary focus and responsibility is documentation and who serves as a link to the Documentation Subcommittee of IRPC. Lynn and Philip, both IRPC Steering Committee members, will follow-up.
      
   4. Assistance
      The Team discussed the importance of having a member who is dedicated to handling the HTML and CGI scripting necessary for WebVoyage configuration. This person should be able to respond rapidly to requests to make changes. We also discussed the need to have someone who could focus on design issues. Ed will follow up.