Z TEXAS MEETING
Friday, February 19, 1999
9:00am - 5:00pm
Perry-Castaneda Library 1.124 (Ground Floor)
University of Texas at Austin
Home | Implementation Resources
Saralyn Shone, Arlington Public Library
Esther Crawford, Rice University
Sheila Williams, Euless Public Library
Kevin Marsh, Information Access Institute
Shelley Almgren, Texas Wesleyan University
Cathy Hartman, University of North Texas
Timothy Judkins, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
Rick Heyser, Tarrant County Junior College
Allen Mullen, Library Resource Sharing Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
Sharon Castleberry, Carrollton Public Library
Scott Piepenburg, Dallas Public Schools
Teresa Ashley, Austin Community College
Bob Stewart, University of Texas at Austin
Harlin Hanson, University of Texas at Austin
Christine Peterson, Library Development Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission
William Moen, University of North Texas, Facilitator for Meeting
Alice Rice, Follett Software Company
Slavko Manojlovich, SIRSI/Memorial University of Newfoundland, CANADA
Mark Moorehead, SIRSI Corporation
John Trares, OCLC
Mark Needleman, Data Research Associates, Inc.
Although Innovative Interfaces was not present physically, they send comments to the draft which were incorporated into the discussion
1) Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda
Bill Moen welcomed everyone to the meeting. The objective of the meeting was stated as obtaining input from the vendors regarding the first draft of the Z Texas profile. Agenda for the day:
- Background of Initiative
- Draft Profile Discussion -- http://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/projects/z3950/tzigprofile99jan25.html
- Next Steps
- Texas Library Association
2) Background of Initiative
(For more detail, please see previous minutes -- http://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/projects/z3950/meeting.html)
Moen Z39.50 series (spring 1998) pointed out the need to create specifications for use of Z39.50 in order to make it work satisfactorily for librarians. Texas' overall goal is to increase resource sharing. Timetable:
- specifications stable and rolled out in April 1999 (at Texas Library Association Conference/Dallas)
- interoperability testing by 4th quarter 1999
Current Z Texas profile builds on several existing profiles: ATS-1, MODELS, CENL). We also have been looking at the effort to create an international profile. We see this as a contribution to that discussion.
3) Draft Profile Discussion
Functional requirements focused on search and retrieval from USMARC-based catalogs:
- Category 1 -- patrons and librarians -- A/T/S/K, boolean, right truncation
- Category 2 -- catalogers, bibliographiers, ILL librarians -- standard number searching, date, language, controlled vocabulary
Retrieval is relatively easy in this situation -- USMARC records
- Does the profile include definition of brief USMARC record? Does it want to?
- Should we ask that the server always return full USMARC record, then client displays fields included in "brief?" Then different clients will display differently.
- We decided not to deal with in this profile.
- Should we include a statement that we are looking forward to implementing Generic Record Syntax (GRS)?
- If we do, we need guidance in how to implement GRS; CIMI has done part of this
- We will add a statement as to future intentions of using GRS
- Need more information from vendors present before we can decide on holdings in this profile (see discussion later)
- Category 2 searching requires proximity searching; is this only in version 3? (Later in meeting, discovered proximity is version 2 compliant (Type I)). Makes Category 1 and 2 both version 2 compliant.
- This profile has a single functional area -- OPAC search and retrieval
- What are the ramifications of some clients/servers not recognizing or "throwing away" specific attributes and/or semantics? Are we hitting our heads against a wall?
Functional Area A
- There is an appendix which calls out specifics fields for each type of search, as well as providing a definition. For librarians, this information should be in this section (with the attribute tables). Each line from Appendix A will be brought into the applicable attribute section. In addition, the attribute tables will also be pulled into Appendix A.
- For example, the section "Local Control Number" from Appendix A include the phrase, definition, and which USMARC fields should be indexed. This line will be added to the Local Control Number search found under Category 2 Searching.
- Do we need browse searching? SCAN is a version 3 service.
- For reference and technical services, seeing a browse list is often very helpful. OCLC does scan across multiple databases, but doesn't deduplicate; each heading shows which database it came from. An advantage to SCAN would be the ability to pinpoint the correct term for each database in order to perform a more advantageous search.
- Do we then need a sort requirement? Possibly a future piece of the profile?
- SCAN really isn't exactly the same as browse. In browse, the patron can go directly to the record; in SCAN, another search would have to be performed, using the correct term.
- Since entry level is category 1, it shouldn't be there. Possibly we need another appendix with functionality we will be looking for in the future. Vendors look mainly at what is contained in the RFPs; appendices would be of little value to them.
- In order to specify SCAN, we would have to decide on indexes, searches, attributes.
- Possibly just use SCAN on A/T/S (#1, #3, #5 from Category 1 search) search combination, but place in Category 2.
- Checked -- SCAN is version 2; server must return an error message if it doesn't support SCAN.
- ZIG overview -- OPAC 2 is new format being developed that includes holdings; has been sent back for "final review;" everyone seems to be for this format; gives options for returning 6 levels of holdings detail; profiling will be necessary to use; seems to be some unanimity among ZIG vendors for implementing; they will pull circulation status (is not in USMARC record), and this will result in GRS record
- Overview from Mark Needleman (email sent after the meeting):
"At the meeting on Friday I agreed to post some information from the new holdings format about what the 6 levels of holdings data were. They are:
- Level 1 - location only (things like owning institution)
- Level 2 - copies only (contains info about things like indvidual copies)
- Level 3 - Summary holdings - reports summary holdings at the bibliographic level
- Level 4 - Detailed holdings - "provides the holdings of the bibliographic units at the physical parts level
- Level 6 - Detailed Holdings and Circulation Information
"The spec is somewhat complex especially for someone like me who is not a Circ librarian - but it does have some good examples showing the same items at all 6 levels."
"You can get it from www.dra.com click on resources - then z39.50 under related links - we seem to have it in both word and PDF format - also remember there are still some changes pending to it - although Slavko mentioned its pretty stable."
- Need in Texas for this? Definitely for ILL in public and academic libraries; maybe less so in schools; this is the piece that will sell Z39.50 in Texas; on client side, make an option to turn off holdings; in libraries in metropolitan areas, many students are willing to drive to another library to pick up material.
- Include holdings in Category 2, which then becomes version 3
- Teresa Ashley -- language -- why are holdings important?
- Slavko Manojlovich -- language -- why is SCAN important?
- Check -- version 3 is backwards compatible to version 2? Yes
- GRS support for bibliographic attributes? Returning USMARC fields in GRS format? This takes out of the realm of USMARC-based catalogs; there is a need for this (cite Univ of N Texas digitized collections); possibly minimally require GRS and USMARC on the client side
- Implications of asking for GRS after purchase of Z client/server; SilverPlatter supports USMARC, GRS, and SUTRS -- it just repackages the same data; in order to use GRS, need to develop schemas
- Placing GRS on client side -- category 3 (which we haven't developed fully yet).
- Bill -- add section of future of the profile (developing more robust GRS, holdings)
- Provide base level holdings for document for April
- Author -- Authorized Name Heading
- For normalized, needs a comma to make it work correctly.
- Author -- Keyword
- Assumed ZIG Implementors Agreement for all keyword searches
- Bill -- add statement that all multi-word search terms should use implied AND
- Title -- Exact
- Can you or should you do title, title series, title uniform searches? Yes; well-behaved server should fail the search if that search type is not available.
- Add attribute 2 for Position ("first in field and first in subfield")
- Title -- Keyword
- As stated, you can find keywords in two different fields. Is this really what you want? Yes -- Kindersley (series) AND cars (title)
- Truncation within subfield, or after field? Can truncation within subfield even be done? E.g.,
- "education" with right truncation, get educational history, education -- U.S.
- "education" with right truncation, don't get educational, but get education -- U.S.
- Consensus -- truncation after the field; all headings that start with "education " will appear before any using "education" as the root of the work (e.g., educational).
- Check asterisks throughout document
- If user puts in their own Boolean, is it accepted?
- When multi-term, use implied AND
- So -- what about explicit attributes that vendors are throwing away?
- If you specify it, we will come . . .
- E.g., in #5 (subject) and #6 (keyword) above, the only differences are in the use of Position and Structure
- This may be a client issue; the patron doesn't set these, the software does
- No default behavior is acceptable in this profile; clients have to send all six values to the server; want the server to process all six values
- How difficult is it to recognize all six?
- What happens when you are using a server or client that is outside the group using this profile? Maybe need an outside agreement; maybe if you don't receive all six, then you process as you like on the server side
- How difficult will be it to migrate to this Z Texas profile? Testbed will help in determining this
- Could set up a form from which you can send queries to multiple sites; would provide an idea of what is available now
- Both DRA and OCLC will be providing support for all six soon
- Local Control Number
- To be used mainly for finding OCLC, LCCN; need to add 019 field (duplicate OCLC number)
- Structure -- phrase or string? Should be changed to phrase
- On the client side, need to remember to incude the vendor symbol before the number, e.g., OCM 8975446
- Standard Numbers/Identifiers
- Add 1007 to use attributes (music publisher number)
- Would like to search UPC, but not available in Bib-1
- Can do two levels here: precise searching and bucket searching; theoretically these numbers are unique, so search results should be pretty good
- Call Number
- Need guidance -- if the customer does not have a specific index (e.g., an LC library may not have a Dewey index), what should the server do? Minimally must support one call number index; if don't have the specific one being searching, return diagnostic (not 0 results)
- Add NLM call number
- Controlled Vocabulary Search
- Check single asterisk
- Bill -- How do we deal with Sears? Need to check
- Add 630 field to tags searched (Appendix A)
- Date of Publication
- 260 subfield c -- should we check numeric values only? Yes
- Bill -- can this be found in Bib-1?
- Use 008 data, not 521 (or 526)
- Format/Material Type
- Does this search the 245 subfield h? Yes, it would
- Language -- OK
- Keyword Notes
- Will take care of 521 and 526 searches (see Audience above)
- Need to add Notes section in Appendix A -- Cathy, Teresa?
- Keyword in Record
- Change Attribute value for Use to 1035 (anywhere)
- Author/Title Combination Search -- should we keep? Can be expressed as a Boolean AND. Keep; test OR and NOT in testbed
- Boolean searching
- How many operands can be used in single statement? If you go over, should get a diagnostic -- "Too many Boolean operations;" if you only support one operand, then need to save result sets to run against -- additional functionality
- Consensus -- don't specify maximum number of operands
- Section on the future
- Have been discussed throughout the meeting; will be pulled together in appendix as bulleted list
4) Next Steps
Timeline of expections would help the vendors; specific timeline for supporting each category; pass timeline by vendors for feedback; vendors will be looking at how useful this profile will be to their other customers
Education process needed -- funders, librarians, vendors; money is available in Texas through TIF; Can private universities get part of this funding? From TIF web site -- http://www.tcea.org/TIF/default.asp:
"TIF was also created to assist Texas institutions of higher education in enhancing/upgrading their telecommunications infrastructures. Several categories of institutions are eligible for TIF assistance:
- Public universities
- Public-health related institutions
- Independent medical schools
- Independent senior colleges and universities; and
- Public community colleges"
Documentation that speaks to a broader audience needed:
- explicit mapping and indexing guidance
- Texas Municipal League
- Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Need a group to identify organizations that need to be education -- too early at this point -- need something to point them to -- working testbed
Need list of Texas Z servers and server information -- should this be a TSLAC function? Dated list can be found at: http://link.tsl.texas.gov/cgi-bin/unionlibs.CGI; Kevin Marsh is considering putting up the web form discussed above, using some of these libraries
5) Texas Library Association
Two preconferences: one with Bill Moen (basic) and one with Mark Hinnebusch (technical)
TLA session -- one hour; three prominent vendors reacting to Z Texas profile; Bob Gaines, Bill Moen, and Tim Judkins will decide on final vendors for presentation
Comments concerning TLA should go to Bob Gaines
Next meeting? Not necessary before TLA; Bill Moen will have final profile on the web by third week in March; use the discussion list -- http://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/projects/z3950/list.html -- and web for comments; all comments should go to the list; Chris Peterson will add mailto links to document for comments
June 3, 1999 -- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas; details will be posted to the list and the web
- Need to get ready to present to TLA Executive Board at Annual Assembly (July 10-12, 1999, Austin)
- Start finding sites for testbed
- Need to look at holdings document
- Where to next?
From Chris: It was a very interesting meeting and each of the Texas librarians enjoyed it very much! We thank the vendors for taking time out of their schedules to attend and adding so much to the discussion!