NCIP Implementers Group Conference Cal
Mar. 19, 2009
Present on the Call
Discussion
Wanner reminded the group that a head count is needed of those planning to attend the April meeting. Walsh agreed to send another note to the list asking who plans to attend and, of those attending, who wants to be part of the group dinner planned for Tuesday evening. Brown provided some information about using various forms of public transportation to get to and around Emeryville during the meeting. This information will be made available on the NCIP website. Innovative is planning to provide lunch for the group on Tuesday, and Brown is planning to make dinner reservations for the group on Tuesday evening. Lunch and dinner Wednesday will be “on your own”. The plan is that Thursday will be only a half day meeting.
Wanner opened a discussion concerning topics for the April meeting. Walsh has posted a list of “starter items” for Version 2.x. He encouraged people to review that list and suggest necessary additions. He will post another list including the feedback to the list prior to the meeting. Wanner encouraged the group to come to the meeting prepared to discuss the publication of suggested lists for scheme/value pairs as well as a process for managing those lists and extensions. Wanner indicated a desire to discuss moving NCIP to a process of continuous review rather than the current 5-year cycle. This is an easy change to make, and it makes it possible to make more frequent updates and changes to the standard without going through the effort associated with putting a ballot before the NISO membership. The process is under the oversight of the Implementers Group and the NISO Topic Committee. Walsh agreed to post a document describing the change to the list prior to the meeting. Koppel asked if there is ever a key moment of decision or if it is just on-going modification. Wetzel explained that the process is on- going but it is much more open than with the cyclic review.
Jackson proposed a process intended to keep the implementation status information on the website more current and, at the same time, provide more granular detail. She suggested a spreadsheet or table that lists the various services that a vendor supports.
Wanner asked if it would be valuable to return to the practice of giving verbal updates on implementations at our meetings. Jackson indicated that verbal updates may be useful to those present at the meeting or those who read the minutes, but they do not provide enough information to be useful to customers. Koppel added that the target of the proposed process is customers. Wanner agreed that this process would help in educating the community. Bodfish mentioned, though, that we havenʼt done a very good job of keeping the published information up to date. He suggested that we do a quick survey at each meeting asking what services are supported as an initiator and as a responder. Wanner asked if we want to look at the services level or whether we need to look deeper than that. Bodifsh cautioned that the deeper we go, the more of a burden it will become. Jackson agreed that more information might actually be overwhelming. She volunteered to create an initial spreadsheet, and Wanner volunteered to review it.
Wanner indicated a desire to set aside time at the April meeting to brainstorm how to make profiles more maintainable. Walsh asked if this process might in any way be similar to the process we need to define for maintaining published lists of scheme/value pairs and for maintaining various extensions. The group decided that they really are separate topics.
Walsh reported that NCIP list archives are available going back to July 2008. Archives prior to that have apparently been lost. He needs to contact the current list administrator to determine how the archives are accessed. He has been in contact with NISO about moving the list, and NISO can offer some services we do not presently have. In addition to archives, we will be able to host documents and conduct some on- line discussions. The goal is to migrate the current list to NISO sometime after the April meeting.
Wanner proposed that we identify a committee or a working group to focus on marketing efforts like revising the current RFP guidelines and planning the LITA presentation. She wants to work this year to change the image of NCIP.
Koppel identified a need to focus on measuring and demonstrating NCIP compliance in order to build credibility. He suggested that one of the more thorough mechanisms for this would be a test bed for certification. Wanner recounted that the ISO-ILL “Bake-Off” was a positive experience that drew a lot of attention from ILL practitioners. Jackson added that everyone who participated put a lot of effort into being able to prove compliance and interoperability. Bodfish suggested that a neutral judge would need to establish some guidelines and ground rules up front. He also indicated that we need to determine whether this is useful as a one-time event or whether it needs to be continuous to be valuable. Wanner suggested adding this as a topic for the April meeting, and Jackson agreed that more discussion is necessary, particularly around how best to measure compliance. Campbell asked whether compliance is well-defined. Bodfish said that compliance is well-defined, but the breadth of services in NCIP makes it possible for compliance claims to be vague and ambiguous. Campbell suggested that compliance should be task-based rather than service based. Koppel agreed that this is
how compliance is generally judged in RFPs. Campbell added that, as a customer, she doesnʼt care about the messages that are involved. She wants to know what she will be able to do. Jackson indicated that the NCIP message state tables define much of this information. Bodfish said that we need to define workflows. Campbell stated that a web form with radio buttons that lets her define what task she wants to perform and then generates a list of those vendors that support those functions would be a marketable commodity. Bodfish asked whether such a form would supplant the need for a test bed. Walsh suggested that the test bed might still be necessary as a means for verifying the self-reported data. Campbell and Jackson agreed to draft some circulation workflows and decide if they represent the types of questions that we need to be asking.
Koppel asked if any further thought has been giving to approaching the open source vendors. Wanner indicated that she has had some discussions with individuals at one of the vendors. At present, they perceive little demand for NCIP and are unable to justify its development. Wanner also reported that Libramation, though not an open source vendor, had expressed interest in NCIP on the list, and Robert Lambert of Libramation joined this call.
Wanner adjourned the call.
- AutoGraphics - Ted Koppel, Mary Jackson
- College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) - Susan Campbell
- EnvisionWare - Rob Walsh (Maintenance Agency)
- Ex Libris - Mike Dicus
- Innovative Interfaces - Lynne Branche Brown
- Libramation - Robert Lambert
- NISO - Karen Wetzel
- OCLC - John Bodfish
- SirsiDynix - Gail Wanner (Chairperson)
Discussion
Wanner reminded the group that a head count is needed of those planning to attend the April meeting. Walsh agreed to send another note to the list asking who plans to attend and, of those attending, who wants to be part of the group dinner planned for Tuesday evening. Brown provided some information about using various forms of public transportation to get to and around Emeryville during the meeting. This information will be made available on the NCIP website. Innovative is planning to provide lunch for the group on Tuesday, and Brown is planning to make dinner reservations for the group on Tuesday evening. Lunch and dinner Wednesday will be “on your own”. The plan is that Thursday will be only a half day meeting.
Wanner opened a discussion concerning topics for the April meeting. Walsh has posted a list of “starter items” for Version 2.x. He encouraged people to review that list and suggest necessary additions. He will post another list including the feedback to the list prior to the meeting. Wanner encouraged the group to come to the meeting prepared to discuss the publication of suggested lists for scheme/value pairs as well as a process for managing those lists and extensions. Wanner indicated a desire to discuss moving NCIP to a process of continuous review rather than the current 5-year cycle. This is an easy change to make, and it makes it possible to make more frequent updates and changes to the standard without going through the effort associated with putting a ballot before the NISO membership. The process is under the oversight of the Implementers Group and the NISO Topic Committee. Walsh agreed to post a document describing the change to the list prior to the meeting. Koppel asked if there is ever a key moment of decision or if it is just on-going modification. Wetzel explained that the process is on- going but it is much more open than with the cyclic review.
Jackson proposed a process intended to keep the implementation status information on the website more current and, at the same time, provide more granular detail. She suggested a spreadsheet or table that lists the various services that a vendor supports.
Wanner asked if it would be valuable to return to the practice of giving verbal updates on implementations at our meetings. Jackson indicated that verbal updates may be useful to those present at the meeting or those who read the minutes, but they do not provide enough information to be useful to customers. Koppel added that the target of the proposed process is customers. Wanner agreed that this process would help in educating the community. Bodfish mentioned, though, that we havenʼt done a very good job of keeping the published information up to date. He suggested that we do a quick survey at each meeting asking what services are supported as an initiator and as a responder. Wanner asked if we want to look at the services level or whether we need to look deeper than that. Bodifsh cautioned that the deeper we go, the more of a burden it will become. Jackson agreed that more information might actually be overwhelming. She volunteered to create an initial spreadsheet, and Wanner volunteered to review it.
Wanner indicated a desire to set aside time at the April meeting to brainstorm how to make profiles more maintainable. Walsh asked if this process might in any way be similar to the process we need to define for maintaining published lists of scheme/value pairs and for maintaining various extensions. The group decided that they really are separate topics.
Walsh reported that NCIP list archives are available going back to July 2008. Archives prior to that have apparently been lost. He needs to contact the current list administrator to determine how the archives are accessed. He has been in contact with NISO about moving the list, and NISO can offer some services we do not presently have. In addition to archives, we will be able to host documents and conduct some on- line discussions. The goal is to migrate the current list to NISO sometime after the April meeting.
Wanner proposed that we identify a committee or a working group to focus on marketing efforts like revising the current RFP guidelines and planning the LITA presentation. She wants to work this year to change the image of NCIP.
Koppel identified a need to focus on measuring and demonstrating NCIP compliance in order to build credibility. He suggested that one of the more thorough mechanisms for this would be a test bed for certification. Wanner recounted that the ISO-ILL “Bake-Off” was a positive experience that drew a lot of attention from ILL practitioners. Jackson added that everyone who participated put a lot of effort into being able to prove compliance and interoperability. Bodfish suggested that a neutral judge would need to establish some guidelines and ground rules up front. He also indicated that we need to determine whether this is useful as a one-time event or whether it needs to be continuous to be valuable. Wanner suggested adding this as a topic for the April meeting, and Jackson agreed that more discussion is necessary, particularly around how best to measure compliance. Campbell asked whether compliance is well-defined. Bodfish said that compliance is well-defined, but the breadth of services in NCIP makes it possible for compliance claims to be vague and ambiguous. Campbell suggested that compliance should be task-based rather than service based. Koppel agreed that this is
how compliance is generally judged in RFPs. Campbell added that, as a customer, she doesnʼt care about the messages that are involved. She wants to know what she will be able to do. Jackson indicated that the NCIP message state tables define much of this information. Bodfish said that we need to define workflows. Campbell stated that a web form with radio buttons that lets her define what task she wants to perform and then generates a list of those vendors that support those functions would be a marketable commodity. Bodfish asked whether such a form would supplant the need for a test bed. Walsh suggested that the test bed might still be necessary as a means for verifying the self-reported data. Campbell and Jackson agreed to draft some circulation workflows and decide if they represent the types of questions that we need to be asking.
Koppel asked if any further thought has been giving to approaching the open source vendors. Wanner indicated that she has had some discussions with individuals at one of the vendors. At present, they perceive little demand for NCIP and are unable to justify its development. Wanner also reported that Libramation, though not an open source vendor, had expressed interest in NCIP on the list, and Robert Lambert of Libramation joined this call.
Wanner adjourned the call.
