NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol
  • Home
  • NCIP News
  • About NCIP
    • The Protocol
    • Extensibility
    • Implementer Profiles
  • About NCIP Standing Committee
    • Meeting Minutes>
      • 2014
      • 2013
      • 2012
      • 2011
      • 2010
      • 2009
      • 2008
      • 2007
      • 2006
      • 2005
      • 2004
      • 2003
      • 2002
    • Members
  • Documentation
    • Introduction to NCIP
    • The Standard
  • Links and Resources
    • Related Standards and Initiatives
    • XML Processing Tools and Utilities
    • Presentations and Publications

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.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.