NCIP Conference Call Minutes
Jan. 8, 2008
1 Call Participants
2 Agenda
2.1 Schedule next call
Zemon scheduled the next call for 4 February 2008 at 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 1pm Mountain / 12pm Pacific. Access information will be published on the NCIP website.
2.2 Review Change Summary for v 1.01
Zemon asked for feedback on the Change Summary document she posted to the list on Friday, 4 January 2008. Brown indicated that, after her review of the summary, she did not find any obvious omissions. Jackson said she felt the summary did not say enough about why the various changes were made. Bodfish suggested that, since the Cover Document (also posted on Friday, 4 January) included much of the rationale, the two documents should be combined into one. Zemon volunteered to revise the documents into a single, combined version.
Zemon indicated that additional information is needed to complete the descrip- tion of the changes made to the Request Element Type and the Lookup Request Service. No one volunteered for this task.
Zemon asked for some guidance on how much effort should be invested in non- normative documents (appendices, Application Profiles, etc.) associated with the Standard. Bodfish suggested that we probably should not revise the Ap- plication Profiles; however, the appendices and other non-normative sections should be reviewed and edited or removed. These changes, if any, should be documented in the Change Summary. The group generally agreed with this suggestion.
Zemon referenced a specific example from an Appendix where sample code is given for an error message. Based on some of the changes, this example will be incorrect. The group suggested that the example be removed in the v 1.01 documentation unless it becomes necessary to ballot v 1.01. In that case, the example should be reworked to be correct in v 1.01.
Zemon asked the group for general feedback on the v 1.01 documents. Bod- fish expressed surprise at how much work was required to describe the various changes. Brown indicated that the process may be easier in v 2. She said it was challenging to wrestle with the formatting and to refamilarize herself with the overall layout of the documents.
2.3 Status of Presentations on the Website
Brown asked whether any of the presentations currently posted on the website should be removed because they are old and out of date. Brown indicated that she reviewed all of them while revising the Roadmap to NCIP document, and she found only two to be useful. Bodfish suggested removing all but those two. Zemon asked whether we should create an archive for the older documents or whether they should just be removed (and no longer available). The group agreed that it would be OK to simply remove the old presentations. Walsh agreed to post Brown’s updated Roadmap to NCIP document and the revised Introduction to NCIP presentation. In addition, he agreed to leave the Introduc- tion to the NCIP DTDs and XML Schemas but remove all other presentations currently on the website.
2.4 Conclusion
Zemon indicated that we have time for two more calls (February and early March) before the planned meeting in March in Minneapolis. Wanner suggested that Zemon (as the Chair) and Walsh (as the Maintenance Agency) take a more active role in nagging and reminding group members of their assigned action items. Brown suggested that we establish more rigid deadlines, perhaps two weeks prior to each call. Brown also suggested that members need to be forthcoming if they hold the responsiblity for action items they feel they cannot complete. This will enable someone else in the group to take over and complete the items.
Zemon adjourned the call.
- Auto-Graphics - Mary Jackson
- EnvisionWare - Rob Walsh
- Innovative Interfaces - Lynne Branche Brown
- OCLC PICA - John Bodfish
- Overdrive - Russ Fuller
- Polaris - Candy Zemon
- Relais International - Kevin Stewart
- SirsiDynix - Brent Jensen, Gail Wanner
2 Agenda
2.1 Schedule next call
Zemon scheduled the next call for 4 February 2008 at 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 1pm Mountain / 12pm Pacific. Access information will be published on the NCIP website.
2.2 Review Change Summary for v 1.01
Zemon asked for feedback on the Change Summary document she posted to the list on Friday, 4 January 2008. Brown indicated that, after her review of the summary, she did not find any obvious omissions. Jackson said she felt the summary did not say enough about why the various changes were made. Bodfish suggested that, since the Cover Document (also posted on Friday, 4 January) included much of the rationale, the two documents should be combined into one. Zemon volunteered to revise the documents into a single, combined version.
Zemon indicated that additional information is needed to complete the descrip- tion of the changes made to the Request Element Type and the Lookup Request Service. No one volunteered for this task.
Zemon asked for some guidance on how much effort should be invested in non- normative documents (appendices, Application Profiles, etc.) associated with the Standard. Bodfish suggested that we probably should not revise the Ap- plication Profiles; however, the appendices and other non-normative sections should be reviewed and edited or removed. These changes, if any, should be documented in the Change Summary. The group generally agreed with this suggestion.
Zemon referenced a specific example from an Appendix where sample code is given for an error message. Based on some of the changes, this example will be incorrect. The group suggested that the example be removed in the v 1.01 documentation unless it becomes necessary to ballot v 1.01. In that case, the example should be reworked to be correct in v 1.01.
Zemon asked the group for general feedback on the v 1.01 documents. Bod- fish expressed surprise at how much work was required to describe the various changes. Brown indicated that the process may be easier in v 2. She said it was challenging to wrestle with the formatting and to refamilarize herself with the overall layout of the documents.
2.3 Status of Presentations on the Website
Brown asked whether any of the presentations currently posted on the website should be removed because they are old and out of date. Brown indicated that she reviewed all of them while revising the Roadmap to NCIP document, and she found only two to be useful. Bodfish suggested removing all but those two. Zemon asked whether we should create an archive for the older documents or whether they should just be removed (and no longer available). The group agreed that it would be OK to simply remove the old presentations. Walsh agreed to post Brown’s updated Roadmap to NCIP document and the revised Introduction to NCIP presentation. In addition, he agreed to leave the Introduc- tion to the NCIP DTDs and XML Schemas but remove all other presentations currently on the website.
2.4 Conclusion
Zemon indicated that we have time for two more calls (February and early March) before the planned meeting in March in Minneapolis. Wanner suggested that Zemon (as the Chair) and Walsh (as the Maintenance Agency) take a more active role in nagging and reminding group members of their assigned action items. Brown suggested that we establish more rigid deadlines, perhaps two weeks prior to each call. Brown also suggested that members need to be forthcoming if they hold the responsiblity for action items they feel they cannot complete. This will enable someone else in the group to take over and complete the items.
Zemon adjourned the call.
