April 25-26, 2012 (In Person Meeting)
NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 1 of 10
NCIP Standing Committee
In Person Meeting
April 25-26, 2012
Winchester, VA
Table of Contents
Attendees......................................................................................................................................................2
Implementer Updates..............................................................................................................................2
Defects and Change Requests...............................................................................................................3
User Address Role Type scheme....................................................................................................3
Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog............................................4
Loaned Item Types...............................................................................................................................4
How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)?...............5
NISO SIP Working Group...................................................................................................................6
Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction......................................................................6
NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP............................................................7
Implementers Registry ...........................................................................................................................8
Informal Gathering at ALA Annual.....................................................................................................9
“Deconstructing NCIP” Presentation.................................................................................................9
Next Meeting................................................................................................................................................9
Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP.......................................................................................10NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 2 of 10
Attendees
- Peter Collins, BorrowDirect
- John Sandstrum, College Center for Library Automation
- Rob Walsh, EnvisionWare (Maintenance Agency)
- Mike Dicus, Ex Libris (Chair)
- Randall Cook, eXtensible Catalog (attended remotely Wednesday morning)
- Eric Leckbee, Innovative Interfaces
- John Bodfish, OCLC (attended remotely Wednesday afternoon)
- Tony O’Brien, OCLC
- John Barr, Polaris Library Systems
- Roert Gray, Polaris Library Systems
- Kevin Stewart,Relais International
- Kelli Schoneck Benitez, TLC
- Dave Faler, TLC
- Juli Marsh, TLC
Wednesday, April 25
Implementer Updates
Ex Libris has three products that use NCIP (Voyager, Aleph, and Alma). Voyager and
Aleph use NCIP v1, while Alma uses NCIP v2. Their most recent integrations are
with Relais International and OCLC.
CCLA usesNCIP as a vehicle for connecting various ILS for state-wide resource
sharing. CCLA is in the process of merging with FCLA; CCLA will cease to exist, but
the new, larger group will offer a larger set of services to a broader audience.
Polaris Library Systems is working to integrate with several vendors including
Innovative Interfaces, OCLC, and Relais International. A recent implementation with
OCLC to do authentication was “plug-n-play”. Polaris is aware of a DVD dispensing
vendor who is doing authentication via NCIP, and Equinox may also be preparing to
implement NCIP. Polaris has done authentication with NCIP for CybraryN for some
time.
Relais International is currently testing with Polaris and Ex Libris Alma.
Innovative Interfaces has completed work to integrate with Relais, and they have
installed in several libraries in various regions across the country. Innovative has
plans to extend Relais integration to Relais’ ILL product in addition to the resourcesharing product.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 3 of 10
OCLC has products using both NCIP v1 and NCIP v2. NCIP v2 is used both internally
and externally. They are currently working on interoperatingwith Ex Libris (Alma
and Voyager), and Polaris. Also, they have added another service (Cancel Request
Item) to the four services in place for BiblionixApollo.
BorrowDirect is aRelais and Innovative Interfaces user. They currently use eSIP
with Voyager, but hope to be able to migrate eventually to NCIP. They also use
ILLiad and Aleph. ILLiad is beginning to work on an NCIP interface with Aleph using
NCIP v1.
TLC is beginning to see interest in Florida for NCIP integration with OCLC WorldCat,
and they are continuing to work with eBook vendors. They are implementing with
III at Melcat and are preparing to test with OCLC. A library in Maryland is switching
to Relais International and presumably either is or will be using NCIP. They are
waiting on Baker and Taylor to resume NCIP development.
EnvisionWare has struggled to justify NCIP development for self-service relative to
SIP. However, with recent developments surrounding SIP 3.0, EnvisionWare is
motivated to do an NCIP implementation to show that it is a viable alternative to
SIP.
Walsh reported on behalf of the NCIP Maintenance Agency. The NCIP 2.02 revision
has been approved by the Standing Committee, and it is now at ballot before the
Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee. Once approved there, it will go before the
NISO membership for approval.
Defects and Change Requests
User Address Role Type scheme
In previous NCIP versions, this scheme was explicitly defined and had items for
“mailto” (email) and “tel” (telephone). The 2.02 revision, though, does not contain
these elements. It is possible that the table cell at the bottom of p.27 in Part 2 of the
standard was inadvertently cut off. Walsh will review the source document to
determine if any data was inadvertently omitted.
After further review, it was determined that User Address Role Type has always had
the scheme members that it has in the 2.02 revision. Gray realized that he meant
the Electronic Address Type, not User Address Role Type. Electronic Address Type
is a reference to an external IANA scheme, and that scheme does include the
“mailto” and the “tel” elements.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 4 of 10
Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog
Cook indicated that there may be a new project within the XC, and a new element
might be needed to indicate a renewal item count in Loaned Item (specifically,
renewals remaining). The project is likely to find additional new change requests
over the next six months or so.
Loaned Item Types
In an ILL environment where a local system is accepting books, a loaned item
arrives at the library for a local patron. The loaned item needs to be circulated.
Normally, the ILL message body will tell the local system when the item is due.
However, if the message included the material type, the local system could calculate
the appropriate loan period.
We need to be clear about who is responsible for determining the due date. Polaris,
for example, provides a generic, default due date since it does not know the item
type from the Accept Item message. Stewart suggested using medium type in
Bibliographic Description in Item Optional Fields to convey this information. Collins
asked if that information is sufficient to drive the loan rules, including the
calculation of the due date. He further indicated that BorrowDirect has used
medium type to assign an item to a location, and then the location can be used to
determine the loan rules. Gray indicated that some messages, like Check Out, don’t
carry Item Optional Fields. Stewart noted, though, that with a check out, the item is
already known. Only a Create Item or Accept Item needs the Item Optional Fields
and, more specifically, the medium type.
WhenAccept Item is used for Check Out (something done by eBook vendors using
Requested Action, for example), then the Accept Item response cannot convey the
due date. O’Brien suggested that a careful reading of the definitions of the allowed
values in the NCIP Requested Action Type Scheme in Part 2 suggests that Requested
Action Type was intended to convey responsibility for a future action, not an
implied request to perform that action. (O’Brien specifically indicated that his
interest in this topic was simply to ensure clarity in the protocol and he has no
opinion as to which interpretation should be preferred.) As such, an Accept Item
with Requested Action Type equal to “Circulate”would not result in a check out;
therefore, no due date would be necessary or relevant until the item is actually
checked out. (There does seem to be a discrepancy between the wording of the
Requested Action Type element in Part 1 and the definitions of the values given in
Part 2. Part 1 seems to imply that Accept Item with a Requested Action Type equal
to “Circulate” does cause the receiver to perform a check out.)
Gray explained that Polaris creates a bibliographic record and an item record, and
the item is then circulated to the patron upon receiving the Accept Item message. NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 5 of 10
Using eBooks as an example, the eBook supplier can send an Accept Item message to
the ILS, and the ILS circulates the item to the patron. It seems that with physical
media, most ILL implementations want the ILS to create a hold for the item, and
then use a Check Out message when the patron picks up the held item. Neither of
these use cases really requires a due date element in the Accept Item message or
response.
Create Item predates Accept Item, and Accept Item was created to couple the
creation of an item with the reason why the temporary item record is being created
(i.e., the intended future transaction). Create Item could still be used if the use case
required a decoupling of the creation of the item record from the intended future
transaction.
It was noted through discussion that most implementations today perform in
accordance with the “Circulate And Notify” Requested Action Type since the ILS
manages the circulation transaction. However, most ILL vendors send “Hold for
Pickup and Notify” since they specifically wantthe ILS to create a hold record. It
was noted that “Circulate And Notify” does not preclude the creation of the hold
record in the ILS. Instead, it simply assigns the responsibility for managing the
future circulation transaction to the ILS. The ILS is free to create a hold record if it
so desires. The group agreed that this interpretation of the Accept Item and
Requested Action Type element is different from the way most systems are
implemented.
Walsh reminded the group that any change to the standard requires a proposal,
discussion at a future meeting, and a vote. Therefore, someone will need to draft a
proposal for a specific change, probably either a clarification of the wording in Parts
1 and 2 for Requested Action Type or the addition of due date somewhere inside the
Accepted Item Response. O’Brien volunteered to draft revised wording in both Part
1 and Part 2 surrounding the use of Accept Item, particularly when used with
Requested Action Type.
How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)?
It should be technically possible to use Update Item to do this. The responding
system would need to implement Update Item and be able to handle any and all
elements allowed in the initiation message. There is some ambiguity in the usage of
Update Item with respect to the Delete Item Fields and the Add Item Fields. How is
a specific field updated? Does it first need to be deleted and then re-added?
Through discussion, it was noted that updates are performed using combinations of
Delete Item Fields and Add Item Fieldswithin Update Item. The responder may be
able to optimize its own implementation by simply changing the data if it
determines that the request is to delete and add the same field.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 6 of 10
NISO SIP Working Group
Walsh explained the history of the recently approved NISO work item to create a
working group tasked with reviewing SIP 3.0 and making a decision about whether
it should become a NISO standard. He reviewed with the group the negative
comments received during thework item ballot period, and he explained that one of
the questions that will need to be addressed by the working group will be the
relationship between a NISO SIP and NCIP. Theoretically, the new working group
could decide that SIP will be the NISO standard for self-service circulation, or the
working group could decide that self-service should remain a facet of NCIP, thus
leaving a questionable role for SIP within the NISO portfolio. Collins, though,
described a use case for a self-service kiosk that could be used to allow a patron to
request items from other libraries. Would this application be a self-service app or a
resource-sharing app?
O’Brien raised a hypothetical scenario whereby 3M might become dissatisfied with a
futureNISO version of SIP and decide to no longer support the NISO version. Would
they then fork the protocol and resume development on their own version of SIP
that might better fit their own ideas for its evolution. That would leave the industry
with not two but three competing implementations.
Marsh recognized that having NISO push the responsibility for self-service from
NCIP to SIP could ultimately increase costs to libraries by requiring them to
maintain two subscriptions, one for a SIP interface and another for NCIP. This
would be a potential disservice to the industry. O’Brien added that this might
violate OCLC’s mandate to pursue lower costs for libraries.
Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction
Dicus explained that the purpose of this section of the agenda is to understand what
work we are and should be doing and whether we should continue meeting in
person twice each year. Also, as a follow up to the SIP 3.0 discussion from earlier,
we should discuss this group’s role with respect to the new SIP working group.
The group reviewed the reasons why it meets twice each year. Historically, there
was an emphasis on significant revisions to the standard, community education
about the standard, and promotion of the standard to the industry. Recently,
though, the number of proposed changes has been diminished, and less emphasis
has been placed on education and promotion.
One of the roles of this group is to help initiators and responders better understand
how each system works and how to interpret the protocol in relation to the
implementations. These kinds of discussions tend to be very ineffective when
conducted on the list serve.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 7 of 10
The group agreed that valuable discussions occur at in-person meetings that would
not happen in other contexts, and, as a result, the group should continue to meet
twice each year in person. Additionally, it was suggested that we might consider
reducing the meeting from 1½ to 1 day. Stewart and Marsh (who recently
organized in-person meetings) indicated that the meeting room arrangements could
probably be changed (i.e., from 2 days to 1) up to a few weeks before the event.
However, many in the group recognized the value in being able to converse outside
of the formal meeting (at dinner, etc.), and in having the opportunity to reflect on
discussions overnight. O’Brien also noted that, if the meeting becomes insignificant
enough to be only 1 day, then it might not be worthwhile to have the meeting at all.
Walsh asked if education and promotion remain needs that this group should work
to address? Marsh indicated that, while NCIP is a recognizable term, many users do
not really understand what it is or how it works. Barr said, though, that perhaps the
vendors themselves are responsible for educating their users rather than that being
something that this group should be doing. Leckbee said that the best marketing
and promotion tools are successful deployments. After some discussion, the group
agreed that the current reduced emphasis on education and promotion is
appropriate for the current state of the industry.
Finally, the group acknowledged that its primary focus should be the continued
evolution of the standard.
NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP
Walsh indicated that he believes that there are two questions that this group should
answer for NISO with respect to the newly forming SIPworking group:
1. What should be the role between the NCIP Standing Committee and the NISO
SIP working group?
2. What should be the role between a possible NISO SIP and NCIP (from the
perspective of the communities served and the specific areas of transactional
responsibilities)? Some in the group felt strongly that it is too early to
determine, for example, whether it is appropriate to remove the
responsibility for self-service from NCIP.
Bodfish suggested that part of the charge for the new working group should be to
review the overlap between SIP and NCIP and make recommendations for how to
mitigate areas of significant overlap and potential conflict.
The group also recognized the need for the SIP working group to address the
question of intellectual property rights associated with the use of the SIP protocol.
This was something that was never properly done for NCIP; NCIP defines functions NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 8 of 10
that are claimed as protected intellectual property (and even has associated
Application Profiles that define in detail how the protocol would be used to
implement the functions), and the standard does not disclaim these as is required by
the ANSI Patent Policy.
Another idea that was discussed involved allowing the SIP meetings to be conducted
in conjunction with NCIP meetings, either on a day before or after. Then, those who
were interested in both standards (and possibly members of both groups) could
easily attend both meetings, and there would be significant consistency between the
work the two groups would be doing.
Gray noted that there should be a distinction between 3M’s SIP 3.0 and any NISO
published version of SIP so that there is no confusion for later implementers.
The following NCIP SC members expressed interest in being part of the NISO SIP
working group:
- Ex Libris
- Innovative Interfaces
- OCLC
- Polaris
- TLC
- EnvisionWare
- CCLA
Implementers Registry
Dicus led a review of the current NCIP Implementer Registry. Sandstrum reported
on various system updates he has performed on the hosting server. He said that
some modules could not be updated because the system is running on an older
version of Drupal, and the modules are not supported on the new version. He
indicated that there is a need for a Drupal developer to maintain the code and the
various modules.
Walsh indicated that, in the past, NISO has offered to allow us to use their hosting
services for the Implementer Registry, but he does not believe that their services
support Drupal. Walsh will ask NISO what other technologies or platforms might
already be available via their hosting service. Walsh will ask also whether NISO
would agree to pay the $125/yr to continue hosting the current registry until it can
be reworked. Gray is currently sponsoring the Implementer Registry, but he
indicated that he will not be able to continue. Marsh volunteered to look into
whether TLC might be able to provide hosting services, but she is uncertain whether
TLC has any particular Drupal expertise.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 9 of 10
Walsh asked whether it is necessary to continue to support the registry in Drupal.
Campbell had recognized that the original implementation could be improved, and
she was preparing to rewrite it when she retired. Further, her original choice to use
Drupal was based on what she knew and had an interest in using. Therefore, it may
be appropriate to review other technologies to determine if there is a better way to
implement a revised version of the registry.
Thursday, April 26
Informal Gathering at ALA Annual
Dicus indicated that we should again arrange an informal gathering at ALA this
summer in Anaheim. He said that there are two hotels, a Marriott and a Hilton, near
the convention center. He will check to see what sort of lobby bar facilities each has
and report back to the group during an upcoming call.
“Deconstructing NCIP” Presentation
Collins will be presenting a session titled “Deconstructing NCIP” at the Northwest
ILL conference in mid September.
Next Meeting
Sandstrum volunteered to check with CCLA (which will become the Florida Virtual
Campus later this year) about hosting an NCIP meeting in the fall. He said they have
a large meeting space, but there are not many restaurants and other facilities close
by.
O’Brien also agreed to check with OCLC about hosting in the fall.
The group tentatively selected the week of October 8 for a fall meeting. If NISO and
the SIP working group are interested in a joint meeting, then the NCIP portion could
be October 9-10, and the SIP portion could begin on the afternoon of the 10th.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 10 of 10
Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP
The group reviewed a draft press release prepared by NISO announcing the
formation of a SIP working group. Those present felt that the press release
described a simple “rubber stamping” process that fails to take into consideration
many of the items discussed during this meeting. Walsh agreed to respond to NISO
with comments suggesting that the press release be rephrased.
NCIP Standing Committee
In Person Meeting
April 25-26, 2012
Winchester, VA
Table of Contents
Attendees......................................................................................................................................................2
Implementer Updates..............................................................................................................................2
Defects and Change Requests...............................................................................................................3
User Address Role Type scheme....................................................................................................3
Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog............................................4
Loaned Item Types...............................................................................................................................4
How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)?...............5
NISO SIP Working Group...................................................................................................................6
Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction......................................................................6
NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP............................................................7
Implementers Registry ...........................................................................................................................8
Informal Gathering at ALA Annual.....................................................................................................9
“Deconstructing NCIP” Presentation.................................................................................................9
Next Meeting................................................................................................................................................9
Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP.......................................................................................10NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 2 of 10
Attendees
- Peter Collins, BorrowDirect
- John Sandstrum, College Center for Library Automation
- Rob Walsh, EnvisionWare (Maintenance Agency)
- Mike Dicus, Ex Libris (Chair)
- Randall Cook, eXtensible Catalog (attended remotely Wednesday morning)
- Eric Leckbee, Innovative Interfaces
- John Bodfish, OCLC (attended remotely Wednesday afternoon)
- Tony O’Brien, OCLC
- John Barr, Polaris Library Systems
- Roert Gray, Polaris Library Systems
- Kevin Stewart,Relais International
- Kelli Schoneck Benitez, TLC
- Dave Faler, TLC
- Juli Marsh, TLC
Wednesday, April 25
Implementer Updates
Ex Libris has three products that use NCIP (Voyager, Aleph, and Alma). Voyager and
Aleph use NCIP v1, while Alma uses NCIP v2. Their most recent integrations are
with Relais International and OCLC.
CCLA usesNCIP as a vehicle for connecting various ILS for state-wide resource
sharing. CCLA is in the process of merging with FCLA; CCLA will cease to exist, but
the new, larger group will offer a larger set of services to a broader audience.
Polaris Library Systems is working to integrate with several vendors including
Innovative Interfaces, OCLC, and Relais International. A recent implementation with
OCLC to do authentication was “plug-n-play”. Polaris is aware of a DVD dispensing
vendor who is doing authentication via NCIP, and Equinox may also be preparing to
implement NCIP. Polaris has done authentication with NCIP for CybraryN for some
time.
Relais International is currently testing with Polaris and Ex Libris Alma.
Innovative Interfaces has completed work to integrate with Relais, and they have
installed in several libraries in various regions across the country. Innovative has
plans to extend Relais integration to Relais’ ILL product in addition to the resourcesharing product.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 3 of 10
OCLC has products using both NCIP v1 and NCIP v2. NCIP v2 is used both internally
and externally. They are currently working on interoperatingwith Ex Libris (Alma
and Voyager), and Polaris. Also, they have added another service (Cancel Request
Item) to the four services in place for BiblionixApollo.
BorrowDirect is aRelais and Innovative Interfaces user. They currently use eSIP
with Voyager, but hope to be able to migrate eventually to NCIP. They also use
ILLiad and Aleph. ILLiad is beginning to work on an NCIP interface with Aleph using
NCIP v1.
TLC is beginning to see interest in Florida for NCIP integration with OCLC WorldCat,
and they are continuing to work with eBook vendors. They are implementing with
III at Melcat and are preparing to test with OCLC. A library in Maryland is switching
to Relais International and presumably either is or will be using NCIP. They are
waiting on Baker and Taylor to resume NCIP development.
EnvisionWare has struggled to justify NCIP development for self-service relative to
SIP. However, with recent developments surrounding SIP 3.0, EnvisionWare is
motivated to do an NCIP implementation to show that it is a viable alternative to
SIP.
Walsh reported on behalf of the NCIP Maintenance Agency. The NCIP 2.02 revision
has been approved by the Standing Committee, and it is now at ballot before the
Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee. Once approved there, it will go before the
NISO membership for approval.
Defects and Change Requests
User Address Role Type scheme
In previous NCIP versions, this scheme was explicitly defined and had items for
“mailto” (email) and “tel” (telephone). The 2.02 revision, though, does not contain
these elements. It is possible that the table cell at the bottom of p.27 in Part 2 of the
standard was inadvertently cut off. Walsh will review the source document to
determine if any data was inadvertently omitted.
After further review, it was determined that User Address Role Type has always had
the scheme members that it has in the 2.02 revision. Gray realized that he meant
the Electronic Address Type, not User Address Role Type. Electronic Address Type
is a reference to an external IANA scheme, and that scheme does include the
“mailto” and the “tel” elements.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 4 of 10
Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog
Cook indicated that there may be a new project within the XC, and a new element
might be needed to indicate a renewal item count in Loaned Item (specifically,
renewals remaining). The project is likely to find additional new change requests
over the next six months or so.
Loaned Item Types
In an ILL environment where a local system is accepting books, a loaned item
arrives at the library for a local patron. The loaned item needs to be circulated.
Normally, the ILL message body will tell the local system when the item is due.
However, if the message included the material type, the local system could calculate
the appropriate loan period.
We need to be clear about who is responsible for determining the due date. Polaris,
for example, provides a generic, default due date since it does not know the item
type from the Accept Item message. Stewart suggested using medium type in
Bibliographic Description in Item Optional Fields to convey this information. Collins
asked if that information is sufficient to drive the loan rules, including the
calculation of the due date. He further indicated that BorrowDirect has used
medium type to assign an item to a location, and then the location can be used to
determine the loan rules. Gray indicated that some messages, like Check Out, don’t
carry Item Optional Fields. Stewart noted, though, that with a check out, the item is
already known. Only a Create Item or Accept Item needs the Item Optional Fields
and, more specifically, the medium type.
WhenAccept Item is used for Check Out (something done by eBook vendors using
Requested Action, for example), then the Accept Item response cannot convey the
due date. O’Brien suggested that a careful reading of the definitions of the allowed
values in the NCIP Requested Action Type Scheme in Part 2 suggests that Requested
Action Type was intended to convey responsibility for a future action, not an
implied request to perform that action. (O’Brien specifically indicated that his
interest in this topic was simply to ensure clarity in the protocol and he has no
opinion as to which interpretation should be preferred.) As such, an Accept Item
with Requested Action Type equal to “Circulate”would not result in a check out;
therefore, no due date would be necessary or relevant until the item is actually
checked out. (There does seem to be a discrepancy between the wording of the
Requested Action Type element in Part 1 and the definitions of the values given in
Part 2. Part 1 seems to imply that Accept Item with a Requested Action Type equal
to “Circulate” does cause the receiver to perform a check out.)
Gray explained that Polaris creates a bibliographic record and an item record, and
the item is then circulated to the patron upon receiving the Accept Item message. NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 5 of 10
Using eBooks as an example, the eBook supplier can send an Accept Item message to
the ILS, and the ILS circulates the item to the patron. It seems that with physical
media, most ILL implementations want the ILS to create a hold for the item, and
then use a Check Out message when the patron picks up the held item. Neither of
these use cases really requires a due date element in the Accept Item message or
response.
Create Item predates Accept Item, and Accept Item was created to couple the
creation of an item with the reason why the temporary item record is being created
(i.e., the intended future transaction). Create Item could still be used if the use case
required a decoupling of the creation of the item record from the intended future
transaction.
It was noted through discussion that most implementations today perform in
accordance with the “Circulate And Notify” Requested Action Type since the ILS
manages the circulation transaction. However, most ILL vendors send “Hold for
Pickup and Notify” since they specifically wantthe ILS to create a hold record. It
was noted that “Circulate And Notify” does not preclude the creation of the hold
record in the ILS. Instead, it simply assigns the responsibility for managing the
future circulation transaction to the ILS. The ILS is free to create a hold record if it
so desires. The group agreed that this interpretation of the Accept Item and
Requested Action Type element is different from the way most systems are
implemented.
Walsh reminded the group that any change to the standard requires a proposal,
discussion at a future meeting, and a vote. Therefore, someone will need to draft a
proposal for a specific change, probably either a clarification of the wording in Parts
1 and 2 for Requested Action Type or the addition of due date somewhere inside the
Accepted Item Response. O’Brien volunteered to draft revised wording in both Part
1 and Part 2 surrounding the use of Accept Item, particularly when used with
Requested Action Type.
How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)?
It should be technically possible to use Update Item to do this. The responding
system would need to implement Update Item and be able to handle any and all
elements allowed in the initiation message. There is some ambiguity in the usage of
Update Item with respect to the Delete Item Fields and the Add Item Fields. How is
a specific field updated? Does it first need to be deleted and then re-added?
Through discussion, it was noted that updates are performed using combinations of
Delete Item Fields and Add Item Fieldswithin Update Item. The responder may be
able to optimize its own implementation by simply changing the data if it
determines that the request is to delete and add the same field.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 6 of 10
NISO SIP Working Group
Walsh explained the history of the recently approved NISO work item to create a
working group tasked with reviewing SIP 3.0 and making a decision about whether
it should become a NISO standard. He reviewed with the group the negative
comments received during thework item ballot period, and he explained that one of
the questions that will need to be addressed by the working group will be the
relationship between a NISO SIP and NCIP. Theoretically, the new working group
could decide that SIP will be the NISO standard for self-service circulation, or the
working group could decide that self-service should remain a facet of NCIP, thus
leaving a questionable role for SIP within the NISO portfolio. Collins, though,
described a use case for a self-service kiosk that could be used to allow a patron to
request items from other libraries. Would this application be a self-service app or a
resource-sharing app?
O’Brien raised a hypothetical scenario whereby 3M might become dissatisfied with a
futureNISO version of SIP and decide to no longer support the NISO version. Would
they then fork the protocol and resume development on their own version of SIP
that might better fit their own ideas for its evolution. That would leave the industry
with not two but three competing implementations.
Marsh recognized that having NISO push the responsibility for self-service from
NCIP to SIP could ultimately increase costs to libraries by requiring them to
maintain two subscriptions, one for a SIP interface and another for NCIP. This
would be a potential disservice to the industry. O’Brien added that this might
violate OCLC’s mandate to pursue lower costs for libraries.
Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction
Dicus explained that the purpose of this section of the agenda is to understand what
work we are and should be doing and whether we should continue meeting in
person twice each year. Also, as a follow up to the SIP 3.0 discussion from earlier,
we should discuss this group’s role with respect to the new SIP working group.
The group reviewed the reasons why it meets twice each year. Historically, there
was an emphasis on significant revisions to the standard, community education
about the standard, and promotion of the standard to the industry. Recently,
though, the number of proposed changes has been diminished, and less emphasis
has been placed on education and promotion.
One of the roles of this group is to help initiators and responders better understand
how each system works and how to interpret the protocol in relation to the
implementations. These kinds of discussions tend to be very ineffective when
conducted on the list serve.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 7 of 10
The group agreed that valuable discussions occur at in-person meetings that would
not happen in other contexts, and, as a result, the group should continue to meet
twice each year in person. Additionally, it was suggested that we might consider
reducing the meeting from 1½ to 1 day. Stewart and Marsh (who recently
organized in-person meetings) indicated that the meeting room arrangements could
probably be changed (i.e., from 2 days to 1) up to a few weeks before the event.
However, many in the group recognized the value in being able to converse outside
of the formal meeting (at dinner, etc.), and in having the opportunity to reflect on
discussions overnight. O’Brien also noted that, if the meeting becomes insignificant
enough to be only 1 day, then it might not be worthwhile to have the meeting at all.
Walsh asked if education and promotion remain needs that this group should work
to address? Marsh indicated that, while NCIP is a recognizable term, many users do
not really understand what it is or how it works. Barr said, though, that perhaps the
vendors themselves are responsible for educating their users rather than that being
something that this group should be doing. Leckbee said that the best marketing
and promotion tools are successful deployments. After some discussion, the group
agreed that the current reduced emphasis on education and promotion is
appropriate for the current state of the industry.
Finally, the group acknowledged that its primary focus should be the continued
evolution of the standard.
NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP
Walsh indicated that he believes that there are two questions that this group should
answer for NISO with respect to the newly forming SIPworking group:
1. What should be the role between the NCIP Standing Committee and the NISO
SIP working group?
2. What should be the role between a possible NISO SIP and NCIP (from the
perspective of the communities served and the specific areas of transactional
responsibilities)? Some in the group felt strongly that it is too early to
determine, for example, whether it is appropriate to remove the
responsibility for self-service from NCIP.
Bodfish suggested that part of the charge for the new working group should be to
review the overlap between SIP and NCIP and make recommendations for how to
mitigate areas of significant overlap and potential conflict.
The group also recognized the need for the SIP working group to address the
question of intellectual property rights associated with the use of the SIP protocol.
This was something that was never properly done for NCIP; NCIP defines functions NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 8 of 10
that are claimed as protected intellectual property (and even has associated
Application Profiles that define in detail how the protocol would be used to
implement the functions), and the standard does not disclaim these as is required by
the ANSI Patent Policy.
Another idea that was discussed involved allowing the SIP meetings to be conducted
in conjunction with NCIP meetings, either on a day before or after. Then, those who
were interested in both standards (and possibly members of both groups) could
easily attend both meetings, and there would be significant consistency between the
work the two groups would be doing.
Gray noted that there should be a distinction between 3M’s SIP 3.0 and any NISO
published version of SIP so that there is no confusion for later implementers.
The following NCIP SC members expressed interest in being part of the NISO SIP
working group:
- Ex Libris
- Innovative Interfaces
- OCLC
- Polaris
- TLC
- EnvisionWare
- CCLA
Implementers Registry
Dicus led a review of the current NCIP Implementer Registry. Sandstrum reported
on various system updates he has performed on the hosting server. He said that
some modules could not be updated because the system is running on an older
version of Drupal, and the modules are not supported on the new version. He
indicated that there is a need for a Drupal developer to maintain the code and the
various modules.
Walsh indicated that, in the past, NISO has offered to allow us to use their hosting
services for the Implementer Registry, but he does not believe that their services
support Drupal. Walsh will ask NISO what other technologies or platforms might
already be available via their hosting service. Walsh will ask also whether NISO
would agree to pay the $125/yr to continue hosting the current registry until it can
be reworked. Gray is currently sponsoring the Implementer Registry, but he
indicated that he will not be able to continue. Marsh volunteered to look into
whether TLC might be able to provide hosting services, but she is uncertain whether
TLC has any particular Drupal expertise.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 9 of 10
Walsh asked whether it is necessary to continue to support the registry in Drupal.
Campbell had recognized that the original implementation could be improved, and
she was preparing to rewrite it when she retired. Further, her original choice to use
Drupal was based on what she knew and had an interest in using. Therefore, it may
be appropriate to review other technologies to determine if there is a better way to
implement a revised version of the registry.
Thursday, April 26
Informal Gathering at ALA Annual
Dicus indicated that we should again arrange an informal gathering at ALA this
summer in Anaheim. He said that there are two hotels, a Marriott and a Hilton, near
the convention center. He will check to see what sort of lobby bar facilities each has
and report back to the group during an upcoming call.
“Deconstructing NCIP” Presentation
Collins will be presenting a session titled “Deconstructing NCIP” at the Northwest
ILL conference in mid September.
Next Meeting
Sandstrum volunteered to check with CCLA (which will become the Florida Virtual
Campus later this year) about hosting an NCIP meeting in the fall. He said they have
a large meeting space, but there are not many restaurants and other facilities close
by.
O’Brien also agreed to check with OCLC about hosting in the fall.
The group tentatively selected the week of October 8 for a fall meeting. If NISO and
the SIP working group are interested in a joint meeting, then the NCIP portion could
be October 9-10, and the SIP portion could begin on the afternoon of the 10th.NCIP Standing Committee – Meeting Minutes –April 25-26, 2012 Page 10 of 10
Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP
The group reviewed a draft press release prepared by NISO announcing the
formation of a SIP working group. Those present felt that the press release
described a simple “rubber stamping” process that fails to take into consideration
many of the items discussed during this meeting. Walsh agreed to respond to NISO
with comments suggesting that the press release be rephrased.