October 22, 2009
NCIP Conference Call
October 22, 2009
Present on the call
Ted Koppel - Auto-Graphics
Susan Campbell - CCLA
Rob Walsh - EnvisionWare (Maintenance Agency)
Mike Dicus - Ex Libris
Lynne Branche Brown - Innovative Interfaces
John Bodfish - OCLC
Rob Gray - Polaris
Gail Wanner (Chair) - SirsiDynix
Agenda
Updates from Implementers
Wanner reported that SirsiDynix is ready to begin testing with CARL. Walsh reported
that EnvisionWare is seeing more interest in NCIP and is slowly moving NCIP up its
development priority list.
News from the Standards Community
LITA
Gray asked about the NCIP session presented at LITA. Wanner said that it went well.
There were approximately 20 people, and they asked some good questions. Koppel
said he was a bit disappointed in the turn out. However, he said that the NCIP program
was up against 3-4 others, so maybe 20 in attendance is good. “We had a better story
to tell this year than in previous years. We got across what we wanted to get across,
but I wish there had been more people.” Wanner said that the conference itself seemed
lightly attended. Koppel agreed, saying that they generally draw 400-450, but this year
may have been closer to 250. Wanner said that the presentation was well worth doing.
“We may have reached some who havenʼt heard it before, but more importantly the
information will be available on the LITA website and we should be able to link to it
soon.”
Single Sign-On
Walsh reported that NISO has formed a Single Sign-On (SSO) working group. Koppel
said that the focus of that group seems to be in a particular direction (e.g., Shibboleth),
and it is uncertain where the groupʼs efforts might go. Wanner recalled that, in the early
days of NCIP, someone talked about Shibboleth and they were not impressed with what
this group was doing with authentication. Bodfish added that they seemed to feel that
NCIP authentication was not as robust. This was due to a desire not to recreate an extensive authentication protocol. He concluded that we all should seek ways to
contribute to the SSO discussion so that it does not fail in the ways Koppel is fearing.
Tasks and Projects
Implementer Registry
Campbell reported on her efforts with the Implementer Registry. She was able to
download the profiles from the website. She put the ones from OCLC, III, and
SirsiDynix into a database and identified the trigger events. She was able to search for
triggering messages that are not part of the core. She said that there are issues with
inconsistent use of language, spacing, capitalization, etc. Mixing C-ILL and DCB does
not seem to be as big an issue. This highlights the need for an on-line form for creating
a profile. The output would be both a document and entries in a database. Wanner
volunteered to participate in an effort to clean up the formatting. Campbell asked,
though, whether that effort would be better invested in the creation of a better
framework for the profiles. Gray said that a system where a consumer could type in
some information or select messages to generate a report would be both interesting and
useful. Further, the system could be used as a way to record interest in NCIP. Koppel
agreed that a system for helping people determine what capabilities exist in which
implementations should be pursued. “First you have to know what people can do in
order to know whether they are able to work together,” he said. “This is something we
should do as quickly as possible.” Wanner noted that we should keep working on this
and see if we can design something that could be useful.
Getting Started with NCIP
Bodfish reported that he had not been able to start the “Getting Started with NCIP”
document we discussed at the last meeting.
RFP Guidelines
Koppel reported that he had expected some information from (Karen) Wetzel about
what the procedures for revised RFP guidelines are to be . Bodfish said he did not think
NISO was putting any efforts toward a new RFP document. Wanner, though, said that
she recalled a goal of having a new document ready by ALA Midwinter. Koppel
volunteered to check with Wetzel and coordinate efforts with NISO.
Outreach
Bake-Off
Wanner asked whether we want to begin planning a “bake-off” event. “This yearʼs low
attendance may suggest that LITA is not the right venue,” she said. “Maybe the
Rethinking Resource Sharing group would be a better forum.” Koppel asked whether
that group represented “doers” or “talkers”. Wanner said that the “talkers” may be ones we want in this effort. Bodfish suggested that we might consider doing something like
this at the next NCIP-IG meeting. Koppel said that we would need to have enough of
the people who are at the controls - the developers, product managers, etc. - as
opposed to the policy-level members. Wanner agreed that this is an interesting idea,
but suggested that we might not be ready by the spring meeting. Bodfish suggested
doing a “dry-run” in the spring and more public event in the fall. Walsh agreed that a
“proof-of-concept” is necessary before we decide where and how to proceed. Brown
suggested that we add an agenda item to the spring meeting and revisit this then.
ALA Events
Wanner asked whether we should pursue an NCIP social at ALA Midwinter. She said
that we tried this at the last ALA Annual, “but we drew only ourselves.” Koppel asked
why people outside the NCIP-IG would come. Wanner said that it would be a chance to
get to know those of us involved in NCIP. “It was intended as a social context for
information, discussion, and Q&A.” Brown said that it was also an opportunity for those
who had been less active in the NCIP-IG to demonstrate their interest in continued
participation. Koppel suggested that it does not hurt to schedule an event. Brown
added that we could set a date then charge each of us to bring a customer. Wanner
asked whether the event should be at a neutral site like a restaurant rather than seeking
a sponsor and using a vendorʼs suite. Koppel noted that he would be reluctant to take a
customer to a competitorʼs suite for an event like this. Wanner offered to see if there
are appropriate venues near the conference center in Boston. “If we canʼt find anything,
we can try for an event at annual,” she said.
NISO Webinar
Wanner reported that she and Walsh participated in the most recent NISO open
teleconference and provided an update on our September meeting. “It was a nice
opportunity to educate and inform,” she said.
Minnesota Library Association
Wanner reported that she attended the Minnesota Library Association meeting and was
surprised by the level of interest in NCIP. “One customer said that NCIP is something
everyone should have -- it just works,” she said. Bodfish asked if this was the customer
who did a time savings study last year. Wanner said it was, and that we should try to
get that study linked on the NCIP website. Bodfish and Wanner each offered to attempt
to locate the study and/or get permission to provide a link.
Spring Meeting
Gray noted that Polaris is willing to host the NCIP-IG spring meeting. The group agreed
that, since Syracuse was identified as a desirable location at the September meeting
due to its proximity to the eXtensible Catalog group, we should accept Polarisʼ invitation.
Gray will post proposed dates to the NCIP list.Next Call
Wanner indicated that the next call will be November 19, 2009, at 1:00 pm Eastern.
[Editorʼs note: In a follow email dated October 23, 2009, Wanner asked whether, due to
a scheduling conflict, November 12 would be acceptable for the group. At this time, the
date has not been firmly set.]
Adjournment
Wanner adjourned the call.
October 22, 2009
Present on the call
Ted Koppel - Auto-Graphics
Susan Campbell - CCLA
Rob Walsh - EnvisionWare (Maintenance Agency)
Mike Dicus - Ex Libris
Lynne Branche Brown - Innovative Interfaces
John Bodfish - OCLC
Rob Gray - Polaris
Gail Wanner (Chair) - SirsiDynix
Agenda
Updates from Implementers
Wanner reported that SirsiDynix is ready to begin testing with CARL. Walsh reported
that EnvisionWare is seeing more interest in NCIP and is slowly moving NCIP up its
development priority list.
News from the Standards Community
LITA
Gray asked about the NCIP session presented at LITA. Wanner said that it went well.
There were approximately 20 people, and they asked some good questions. Koppel
said he was a bit disappointed in the turn out. However, he said that the NCIP program
was up against 3-4 others, so maybe 20 in attendance is good. “We had a better story
to tell this year than in previous years. We got across what we wanted to get across,
but I wish there had been more people.” Wanner said that the conference itself seemed
lightly attended. Koppel agreed, saying that they generally draw 400-450, but this year
may have been closer to 250. Wanner said that the presentation was well worth doing.
“We may have reached some who havenʼt heard it before, but more importantly the
information will be available on the LITA website and we should be able to link to it
soon.”
Single Sign-On
Walsh reported that NISO has formed a Single Sign-On (SSO) working group. Koppel
said that the focus of that group seems to be in a particular direction (e.g., Shibboleth),
and it is uncertain where the groupʼs efforts might go. Wanner recalled that, in the early
days of NCIP, someone talked about Shibboleth and they were not impressed with what
this group was doing with authentication. Bodfish added that they seemed to feel that
NCIP authentication was not as robust. This was due to a desire not to recreate an extensive authentication protocol. He concluded that we all should seek ways to
contribute to the SSO discussion so that it does not fail in the ways Koppel is fearing.
Tasks and Projects
Implementer Registry
Campbell reported on her efforts with the Implementer Registry. She was able to
download the profiles from the website. She put the ones from OCLC, III, and
SirsiDynix into a database and identified the trigger events. She was able to search for
triggering messages that are not part of the core. She said that there are issues with
inconsistent use of language, spacing, capitalization, etc. Mixing C-ILL and DCB does
not seem to be as big an issue. This highlights the need for an on-line form for creating
a profile. The output would be both a document and entries in a database. Wanner
volunteered to participate in an effort to clean up the formatting. Campbell asked,
though, whether that effort would be better invested in the creation of a better
framework for the profiles. Gray said that a system where a consumer could type in
some information or select messages to generate a report would be both interesting and
useful. Further, the system could be used as a way to record interest in NCIP. Koppel
agreed that a system for helping people determine what capabilities exist in which
implementations should be pursued. “First you have to know what people can do in
order to know whether they are able to work together,” he said. “This is something we
should do as quickly as possible.” Wanner noted that we should keep working on this
and see if we can design something that could be useful.
Getting Started with NCIP
Bodfish reported that he had not been able to start the “Getting Started with NCIP”
document we discussed at the last meeting.
RFP Guidelines
Koppel reported that he had expected some information from (Karen) Wetzel about
what the procedures for revised RFP guidelines are to be . Bodfish said he did not think
NISO was putting any efforts toward a new RFP document. Wanner, though, said that
she recalled a goal of having a new document ready by ALA Midwinter. Koppel
volunteered to check with Wetzel and coordinate efforts with NISO.
Outreach
Bake-Off
Wanner asked whether we want to begin planning a “bake-off” event. “This yearʼs low
attendance may suggest that LITA is not the right venue,” she said. “Maybe the
Rethinking Resource Sharing group would be a better forum.” Koppel asked whether
that group represented “doers” or “talkers”. Wanner said that the “talkers” may be ones we want in this effort. Bodfish suggested that we might consider doing something like
this at the next NCIP-IG meeting. Koppel said that we would need to have enough of
the people who are at the controls - the developers, product managers, etc. - as
opposed to the policy-level members. Wanner agreed that this is an interesting idea,
but suggested that we might not be ready by the spring meeting. Bodfish suggested
doing a “dry-run” in the spring and more public event in the fall. Walsh agreed that a
“proof-of-concept” is necessary before we decide where and how to proceed. Brown
suggested that we add an agenda item to the spring meeting and revisit this then.
ALA Events
Wanner asked whether we should pursue an NCIP social at ALA Midwinter. She said
that we tried this at the last ALA Annual, “but we drew only ourselves.” Koppel asked
why people outside the NCIP-IG would come. Wanner said that it would be a chance to
get to know those of us involved in NCIP. “It was intended as a social context for
information, discussion, and Q&A.” Brown said that it was also an opportunity for those
who had been less active in the NCIP-IG to demonstrate their interest in continued
participation. Koppel suggested that it does not hurt to schedule an event. Brown
added that we could set a date then charge each of us to bring a customer. Wanner
asked whether the event should be at a neutral site like a restaurant rather than seeking
a sponsor and using a vendorʼs suite. Koppel noted that he would be reluctant to take a
customer to a competitorʼs suite for an event like this. Wanner offered to see if there
are appropriate venues near the conference center in Boston. “If we canʼt find anything,
we can try for an event at annual,” she said.
NISO Webinar
Wanner reported that she and Walsh participated in the most recent NISO open
teleconference and provided an update on our September meeting. “It was a nice
opportunity to educate and inform,” she said.
Minnesota Library Association
Wanner reported that she attended the Minnesota Library Association meeting and was
surprised by the level of interest in NCIP. “One customer said that NCIP is something
everyone should have -- it just works,” she said. Bodfish asked if this was the customer
who did a time savings study last year. Wanner said it was, and that we should try to
get that study linked on the NCIP website. Bodfish and Wanner each offered to attempt
to locate the study and/or get permission to provide a link.
Spring Meeting
Gray noted that Polaris is willing to host the NCIP-IG spring meeting. The group agreed
that, since Syracuse was identified as a desirable location at the September meeting
due to its proximity to the eXtensible Catalog group, we should accept Polarisʼ invitation.
Gray will post proposed dates to the NCIP list.Next Call
Wanner indicated that the next call will be November 19, 2009, at 1:00 pm Eastern.
[Editorʼs note: In a follow email dated October 23, 2009, Wanner asked whether, due to
a scheduling conflict, November 12 would be acceptable for the group. At this time, the
date has not been firmly set.]
Adjournment
Wanner adjourned the call.