Cornell University Library Staff Web Page
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
9 November 1998
RWA Notes.
1. OPAC Upgrades. I reported on the four suggestions put forward by IRPC (originally proposed by Fred Muratori) for upgrading the NOTIS OPAC. Two of these, (a) the ability to search by unit location and (b) the ability to search by publisher, are being investigated by LTD. The other two (c) increasing the 250 item display limit for keyword searching and (d) reducing the number of stopwords are things that we can try now. Fred did increase the item display limit from 250 to 500 on Friday, but NOTIS also crashed on Friday, leading Fred to return the limit to 250, in the event this change caused the crash. I assume we will try to find out if there is some connection between Fred's action and the NOTIS (re?)action. Fred has also sent a note to IRPC-L, suggesting a reduction in the number of stopwords (there are currently 72). When this discussion has been completed, I expect IRPC Steering will make a recommendation on this.
2. Patron File. I provided an update on the future of the patron file. This file, which is used for all circulation transactions, is based primarily upon two extracts from other databases: the Registrar's database provides us with student information, and the HR database with employee (faculty and staff) information. In January, the old HR database will change fundamentally with the advent of the PeopleSoft system. We have been working to ensure that this transition will not impair circulation. There seem to be two programs involved. One (written by someone who knows the HR system) for the extract, and one (by someone who knows NOTIS) to take that extract and add it to the patron file. CIT will be writing the first program, and LTD will be writing the second. All employees will receive a new ID number in January, the Empl ID, which HR will use henceforth for employee identification. This replaces the social security number. But most people will still have the social security number on the mag stripe of their ID cards--until a total re-carding takes place sometime in 1999. So some people will have an Empl ID on their ID cards, while others (most) will have the social security number. Lynne believes that both of these numbers can be included (when they are both available) for each individual in the patron file--so that a user should be able to borrow materials, regardless of which of those two numbers is on his/her ID card. A lot of energy and discussion is going into this work--everyone involved is exchanging information--so I am confident that this transition will be as smooth as it can be.
3. Photocopy Refund Test. Carmen reported that she has been working with Ikon on a vendacard refund test. Users have been concerned about the difficulty of obtaining refunds from Ikon for money lost when trying to buy a vendacard. Uris will therefore be conducting a test over the next sixty days, which will allow them to provide users with refunds in the form of vendacards: when a user loses $1, $5, $10, or $20 dollars in the vendacard machine, the library desk in Uris will be able to provide a refund in the form of a vendacard for that amount. Users fill out a signed form in order to receive such a refund. This will save users much time, and will have great PR advantages. In response to a question, Carmen said she assumed we would give students working at the desk this authority, when there is no one else on duty. (If we can give student workers responsibility for our buildings and our collections, Carmen said, then we should be able to give them responsibility for this.) If this experiment works well in Uris, we would hope to expand it to include other libraries that use Ikon as a vendor.
4. Licenses. I explained that we need to do some more work to ensure that our users (and we ourselves) are aware of what is and is not permitted with respect to licensed databases. This was discussed in PSEC, where the main concern was that some automatic process be in place--that we are not expected to be monitoring individual use. I feel we need a generic list of potential database violations, i.e., the kind of thing that appears in most licenses. I have discussed this with CDExec and will be putting together a small task force to draft such a list. I assume this would be sent to the Documentation Committee, which would decide how best to distribute it. It could be put up somehow on the Gateway--although it should probably also be available as a paper hand-out. It could be distributed in instruction sessions. This seemed reasonable to most staff at this meeting, although there was some discussion about the extent to which such a generic list would need to be visible on the Library Gateway: should it always come up, or should it be a selection option? Brendan emphasized that there are some databases that do permit broader use than many licensed databases, and we need some way to let users know that those databases can be used differently. Tony made the point that actions by users that are defined as violations can possibly be performed, if the permission of the vendor is received. We should therefore include in this generic list of restrictions something that informs users that, if they are interested in doing something that is defined as illegal, they should contact someone (yet to be defined) in the Library, to talk about the possibility of approaching the vendor.
5. SilverPlatter. Jerry Caswell updated us on the plan to eliminate as much local loading of databases as possible, and to rely on remote access. Many of the databases we now mount locally are from SilverPlatter. The plan is to discontinue local loading as of January, and to rely on remote access. We would use WebSpirs as the interface--probably the fourth release, which we are now testing. Jerry emphasized that we would mount the WebSpirs interface locally--although we would also retain access to the remotely maintained WebSpirs interface. In this way, as we improve our own local machinery, we could shift from the remote to the local interface. Jerry reiterated that the shift to remote access should have no effect on the current look and feel of the OPAC, unless we want it to.
6. Web Catalog. Jerry also reviewed our effort to provide Web access to the catalog. The latest test of WebPac caused NOTIS again to crash. This happened, despite the fact that George had seen to it that all of the most recent updates and fixes are in place. Because of this, and because other institutions with the same software have managed to run WebPac, Jerry feels that the problems may derive from the age and eccentricity of the mainframe. CIT is planning to undertake an upgrade to the mainframe in January, after which time we will do another WebPac test. If that test is again unsuccessful, then some thought may need to be given to the possibility of creating a separate CICS region in the mainframe, for WebPac to operate; in that way, WebPac's problems, while still occurring, would not affect the whole NOTIS system. Jerry explained that, because the mainframe is now operating at near-capacity, there may well be some reluctance on CIT's part to create such a separate region--at least until the use of the mainframe declines as a result of P2K. CIT is also understandably loath to invest more money in the mainframe, since a primary outcome of P2K is to reduce our dependence on a mainframe environment. Tony emphasized that we are interested in a Z39.50 capability: we should select a non-Z39.50 option (such as the Buffalo alternative) only as a last resort. Jerry said that he supports this view, and we all agreed once again that Web access to the catalog should be a very high priority.
7. Grants. We had a brief discussion about the use of grants in public services. There have not been many external grants recently in public services. Preservation, Mann and RMC are three major external grant-getters in CUL. Public Services has done well with internal grants (e.g., the online reserve project in Uris), and several excellent public services proposals were received in Sarah's internal grant program. Deb Lamb-Deans suggested that we should perhaps provide more information to staff as to which grants are available. Jill said that Mary Patterson has been working on a project for marking maps, in order to avoid theft--which would be suitable as an initial grant project. Pat Court said that many of the projects that could best be supported by grants have to do with technology and preservation. Brendan said that we should begin by looking at the work we now do--from the perspective of how it might be supported by grant funding. He also noted the one-time quality of grants, while much of what we want to do is on-going. Michael Engle agreed: we are engaged less in projects than in continuing services, which often do not lend themselves to grants. There are, however, some public service projects which might be possible--and he mentioned that he had been thinking about NEH summer teaching grants, which librarians and faculty might work on together. Lynn noted that distance education projects should be an area, in which grant funding might be more readily available. Brendan said there are also possibilities for electronic publishing and for projects to investigate improvements in education that could be pursued. Lynn noted that we should be including grant writing in Procedure 13, as one promotion criterion. Deb said that the Academic Personnel Policy Committee is currently discussing this, since they have found that other institutions do include successful grant writing among their promotion criteria, while we presently do not. I said I would continue this discussion with PSEC.
8. LCEZ. Lynn said JGSM needs to upgrade the software currently used to train student circulation staff. She will be asking other libraries whether they want to upgrade this same software, so that we could perhaps negotiate a combined price. This software has been funded centrally in the past.
9. Visitor. Tony introduced Ola Pilerot, a visiting librarian from Sweden, who is here for the week to study our instruction program.
Back to StaffWeb Index | Back to Public Services Forum Index
rev. 11/13/98 peo