Monday, August 21, 2000
8:00 - 5:00
Room NB02.100A (North Campus)
UT Southwestern Medical Center
Dallas, TX 75390
Home | Implementation Resources
Bill Moen, University of North Texas, email@example.com
Sheila Williams, Euless Public Library, firstname.lastname@example.org
Cathy Hartman, University of North Texas, email@example.com
Scott Piepenburg, Advanced Information Consultants, Inc., firstname.lastname@example.org
Sharon Castleberry, Coppell Public Library, email@example.com
Amy Stults, Abilene Christian University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Caroline Geer, LeTourneau University, carolineGeer@letu.edu
Slavko Manojlovich, Memorial University of Newfoundland/SIRSI Corporation, email@example.com
Esther Crawford, Rice University, firstname.lastname@example.org
David Schuster, Plano Independent School District, email@example.com
Beverley Shirley, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, firstname.lastname@example.org
Christine Peterson, Amigos Library Services, email@example.com
Tim Judkins, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, firstname.lastname@example.org
"Where We Are Now" — Recap of Bath Profile
- Informed by Z Texas Profile
- As discussed previously within this group, we agreed that the Z Texas Profile should become compatible with Bath Profile, when it becomes registered
- In spring 2000, the Bath Profile was taken to ISO to be registered the Bath Profile
- In June, approved as internationally registered profile
- For this meeting, Bill has re-drafted the Z Texas Profile so that it comes into compliance with Bath Profile
Interest in the Z Texas Profile from other states, as well as organizations
- Could be a possibility of profile for each state
- Instead, Bill suggested to NISO that there be a US national profile; would minimize the need for state-specific extensions
- Bill has submitted a planning document and has been asked to chair it
- The result will be a US national standard profile
- Suggested charge and scope -- basically what is in core of Z Texas Profile and Bath Profile
- Timetable: Ballotable draft by next April 2001; done by June
Strengths in selling this profile
- Multi-type (school, academic, public, special, state library)
- Multi-type positions within libraries (catalogers, technical services, ILL, government documents, reference, public service, directors
- Librarians don't want to reinvent the wheel -- the basis for this work is done
Review of revised Z Texas Profile for approval and release; Review of new search and retrieval requirements for Z Texas and beyond Bath
Our comments that went to the ZIG meeting (San Antonio) in January 2000 in general were accepted and incorporated. This revised profile brings us into compliance with Bath.
Functional Area A, Level 0 -- Author, title, subject, keyword searches
Functional Area A, Level 1 -- 15 searches -- permutations on author, title, subject, keyword; also standard identifier, date of publication
Functional Area A, Level 1 -- Use of SCAN for author, title, subject, keyword
Functional Area A, Level 2 -- Placeholder for future Bath searches (possibly some of our Functional Area A, Level 3)
Functional Area A, Level 3 -- Our more specific searches
Functional Area B, Level 0-2 -- Holdings search
- Level 0 -- supports current implementation only
- Level 1 -- minimal and summary bibliographic level holdings (to be developed by Bath)
- Level 2 -- (to be developed by Bath)
- Three appendices are from the Bath Profile (Diagnostics, Truncation, Scan)
- Holdings appendix given to us today for comment
- MARC 21 Indexing Recommendations — Appendix E — still under development
- Slavko will be working on a UNIMARC equivalent after we are comfortable
Discussion of Functional Area, Level 3 (Based on Release 1.0)
Local Control Number (Attributes same as for Standard Identifier Search)
- A number that is automatically generated by the local system for each record
- This number could be found in the 001 or 035 or somewhere outside the MARC record; may have to specify protocol instead of MARC tags
- Use attribute 12 is used for OCLC to get the OCLC record; RLG also uses 12
- Use in a consortial environment
- Use in ILL would also be very useful
- Use by serious technical services users
- Assumes complete number
- Change to: "Remote System Record Number: Searches a known complete string that uniquely identifies a record in a remote system."
- ISBN & ISSN
- Assume complete number
- Dewey and LC Classification
- Agreed in November 1999 that it is not right to ask a library that doesn't use Dewey to support the LC search and vice versa; must support either Dewey or LC Classification
- Why would someone search a call number? Browse the collection; determine collection strengths of different libraries
- The idea is that this would usually be used as a classification search, not necessarily a call number search, although call number could be done here
- LM, SuDOC, Texas document number as classification searches? Can we provide a single classification search for all? Some beginnings of class numbers are the same (PR for SuDOC and LC) and would bring back multiple subject categories; patron might be confused.
- Add NLM, SuDOC, Texas document number; must support at least one of the five
- Server supports only what they have
- Client must support all five
- These three searches will have same attributes as used for Dewey and LC
- Subject Headings -- LC, Medical, LC Children's
- Concern of using LC Children's headings
- Drop the separate search for children's
- Add to LC subject heading searches: LCAC (children's)
- Indexing guidelines would search both indicators 0 and 1
- Add Sears headings
- Second indicator 7 or 8
- Use attribute for Sears?
- Chris Peterson will email Ray Denenberg at LC to see if we can add a new use attribute
- First words in field
- "searcher knows the main subject heading but not sub-headings."
- If searched United States -- History, it would be a failed search because it is only searching subfield a
- Drop sentence "This search is useful" in narrative for all three subject headings searches
- Format - Material Type Search
- Qualifier -- can't search for it by itself
- Where is it coming from? 008, 006, 007, |h of 245, specific material designation
- This is an indexing issue; deal with later
- Language -- OK
- If searching multiple words, then use Boolean AND
- Caveat -- we recognize that this is a function of the vendor (some vendors don't index all 5XX fields)
- Anywhere in record
- Difference between this an keyword in level 0 -- level 0 include keyword of common access points (server defined); this is keyword anywhere in record
- Necessary? Guidance on indexing may be difficult
- Each "any" search searches all the access points specified within that level and lower: 5.A.0.4, 5.A.1.13. Sections 5.A.3.19 and 5.A.3.20 will be deleted because the language above will provide both keyword and keyword with right truncation that indexes that level and lower.
- Uniform Titles
- Catalogers using this have already looked at an authority record so they know what they are looking for. Public services and music librarians use it
- Delete Exact Match -- not necessary
- Delete sentence "This search is useful when the beginning . . . "
- Series Titles
- Delete Exact Match -- not necessary
- Delete sentence "This search is useful when the beginning . . . "
- Periodical Title??
- ILL use? Law libraries? Heavy use in public services area
- 222 Key Title Search?
- Bath is looking at adding -- will be put in their Level 2; will wait on Bath
- Publisher Name -- OK
- Date of Acquisition
- Will limit
- ILL -- limit by acquisition date important
- Important? -- Beverley Shirley will check with Carolyn Foster (Texas State Library Archives) for more information
- 541 |d, searching archives only -- only
- Attribute already available
- Form/Genre and Function
- Form/Genre helpful in archives as well as public libraries (Romance, Christian Literature)
- Function -- from Art and Architecture Thesaurus
- Bev will talk to Carolyn about these also
- If we keep, Chris will contact Ray for additional use attribute values
- Maybe put in a higher level for archives?
- Some items in this Level 3 will be bumped to Level 2 when Bath updates their profile. What is left would stay in Level
- Updated version of holdings document is on LC web site; Bill's review of holdings is on TSLAC TZIG web site
- Difference between OCLC holdings and this; this would provide more timely information (ultimately) -- circulation status
Last fall, a sub-group of the TZIG discussed the MARC 21 tags that would be recommended for basic searches. These should be considered on the server side for indexing:
Slavko has been using this guidance in his work in Canada, as well as for the Texas State Library; possibility of having vendor use this list as the index used for new installations?
GEAC, DRA, SIRSI working with indexing guidance; BestSeller soon
LC -- some of their indexing is hard-coded; can it be changed?
OCLC -- has agreed to Bath Level 0 compliance; has just re-indexed; their indexing (with minor changes) is very similar to the guidance document
More acceptance from the vendor community and library community to a set of indexing standards?
Undue burden on smaller libraries? Some/most systems for smaller libraries are hard-coded. However, it is probably more important that smaller libraries have clients to access other libraries rather than other libraries have access to them (updating servers).
Chris will talk to TIF Library Working Group to see if future RFPs could include money to re-index databases for Z Texas/Bath compliancy; keep money for Z39.50 hardware and software.
OCLC document has been updated, so Amy will check and change relevant information
Should we put it out for comment and then add as Appendix E?
Continue to discuss tags via list
Library of Texas Virtual Union Catalog
Library of Texas -- http://www.tsl.texas.gov/lot/
Beverley Shirley -- will be funded in Year 2 (after May 2001); Deborah Littrell (email@example.com) will be heading up this project;
- Have an approximate budget, but not a lot of detail at this point; will be looking for help in putting specifications together
- Did provide additional money for searching non-compliant catalogs
What can TZIG do to help? As a group or individually?
- Issues in speed (or lack thereof) of broadcast searching; possibilities of regional servers?
- Guidance documents for libraries?
- Anyone interested should contact Deborah
This group may need another focus since Z Texas is winding down:
- Maybe the virtual union catalog
- Maybe profiling citation databases
- TRAIL and TSLAC have implemented cross-domain searching; should we continue this and see what other metadata is available to search?
- IMLS testbed -- Bill is waiting on answer to his grant application -- test implementations, test database from OCLC to vendors to make them compliant with Bath Profile, certification and testing procedures
Profiling Full-Text Databases
Would it be worth our while (in Texas) to deal with full-text?
A single interface that searches multiple databases at one time would be beneficial to the public library patron
A profile would help those that build databases to help open them to the world
Chris will contact Margery Tibbetts -- UC Digital Library, who is already doing something similar; we'll discuss at a future meeting
Development of implementation guidance documentation, etc.
Journal articles aimed toward different library audiences
- State library article -- Chris Peterson
- School library -- Scott Piepenburg
- IT -- Slavko Manojlovich
- Reference -- Carolyn Geer
- Interlibrary Loan -- Rebecca Linton ??
- Tim Judkins -- checking for MLA
- Government Documents -- Cathy Hartman
- Small Public Library -- Bob Gaines
- Talk to Bill about speaking at national level? Or leave it to the national group?
- TLA district meetings
- Short articles every step of the way during the server implementation
- Firewall guidance -- most libraries have firewalls in front of the Z server; how should they deal with it?
- Use discussion list for true implementation questions
- Ontario library conference -- Slavko will be comparing 10-12 vendors and how they support Bath Level 0
- Planning documents for librarians -- step 1, 2, 3 . . . get the document, talk to your vendor, etc.
How to get libraries to implement:
- Must be the decision of management
- TSLAC requires it?
- Is placed in TIF proposals with Bath/Z Texas Profile as requirement?
Texas State Library/TRAILS Integration Project
Cross-domain and conformant to Bath Level 0
Difficult implementation even when all players were on board; both politically and technically
Free Texas Client
From Bob Gaines: Now that there are two targets for Z Texas Level 0, Rob Bull can finish the Texas client; should be testing soon and will be available
Future of TZIG
Meeting October/November in Austin; discuss specifics of how we can help with Library of Texas; deal with guidance documents; facilitator for group; profile for cross domain/citation databases; MARC tags; testbed; list of libraries that have complied
Beverley -- Send background information to list
Austin in a couple of months; discuss virtual union catalog?
Facilitator/chair for future meetings?
Beverley -- Set up meeting in Austin for Monday or Friday in early November
Centralized list of compliant servers with contact information and some technical information; attribute sets should be on someone's web site