Dear Matthew,
Many thanks for the email and the attached document. It appears that you have completed a lot of work on what is proving to be a difficult area to resolve. We do have a couple of questions here in Queen's University and apologies if the answers seem quite straightforward!

You have listed the preferred field orders from the BL, the initial proposals for fields and revised list of fields that we would like to see Innovative incorporate.

For a journal article request, for example, the BL has asked that the order of the fields be: journal title, year etc, article title, ISSN but the order of the proposed fields for Innovative is article author, article title, journal title, year etc - our question is are these still out of sync with each other? Because article author is at Q1, will this be the first field that appears on the request going through to the BL?

Our second question is concerning the part details - the BL wants the Year, Volume, Part and Pages all to appear on the 1 request line. As this information is collected in separate fields in Millennium, are they pulled together into the 1 field when the request is sent to the BL?

Thirdly and lastly, what about requests for Government Publications and Technical Reports? We would occasionally get requests for these and we don't think they would be covered under Books, Journals or Conference Proceedings.

Thanks
Alex

Alex McIlroy
Borrower Services Librarian
Medical Library
Queen's University Belfast
Mulhouse Building
Mulhouse Road
Belfast
BT12 6DP

Phone: 028 9063 2760
Email: [log in to unmask]

Follow the Library at Queen's University Belfast on Facebook and Twitter


-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for current and potential users of the Innopac system [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of PHILLIPS M.E.
Sent: 18 July 2012 17:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Changes to Millennium ILL: part 2

I am attaching a document in which I have recorded the possible field allocations for the ILL module. The assumption is that Innovative will be prepared to add a few extra fields to ILL requests, so I am trying to work out what it is reasonable to ask for.

The initial sections, pages 1 and 2, cover the fields recommended by the BL and the initial proposals from Eric Leckbee of Innovative. Starting towards the end of page 2 and extending to the start of page 5 is a "Full list of possible fields needed". Here I have tried to list every field which might be useful for the management of different types of requests, and general fields for internal management of the request and for communicating information to suppliers (such as billing and account information). We have to ensure that, in dedicating certain fields for purposes of making ARTEmail requests conform, we do not end up making it harder to communicate with other suppliers (such as each other).

As this ends up being a very long list (34 potential fields, i.e. 23 more than we have at present), there is then a "Reduced list of field requirements" where I have omitted the less useful bibliographical fields and lumped together all sorts of request management fields. With this reduced list I think it would be possible to achieve a good outcome by having six extra fields added to the system. Ideally some of these would not be transmitted in requests at all, and would be used for things like billing information, staff notes, and for recording the user's preferred delivery location and format.

Aside from ten fields that would need to be dedicated to specific purposes (to fit the BL's requirements and the need to handle book chapters which require ten distinct fields), there would be the "cited in" field (by default Q4) and six fields which could be used for whatever the Library requires, some of which might be able to be transmitted to suppliers in e-mails (e.g. BL account number).

I would be glad if you could consult ILL staff at your institution as necessary and see if these proposals would meet the needs of your site.
If there are field requirements I have not covered, do let me know. I think Innovative would like to get this settled fairly soon, so please reply as soon as possible. I hope to get back to Eric next week.

I would propose that Q5a to Q5c would be untouched (and used for whatever we might be using them for now) and that additional bibliographic fields would be added to cope with the overflow from Q1,
Q2 and Q3a-e. Journal Articles need eight fields, as do Conference Papers, and Book Chapters need ten, hence the need for three extra bibliographic fields. Not repurposing Q5a-c might make the transition easier as less of our internal stuff will move about. I am not sure, however, of the implications for the e-mails generated to send to other suppliers, as I think they are basically in field order, so may be a bit mystifying. Does anyone know whether the field order in the OPAC forms has to match the field order of the ILL records precisely? If it does, we may have some more thinking to do, and Q5a-c may have to be devoted to bibliographic fields.

Even if you have no comments and are happy with the proposals, do please reply so that I know we have a UK consensus on this, which will carry more weight.

Matthew

--
Matthew Phillips
Electronic Systems Librarian, Durham University Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham, DH1 3LY
+44 (0)191 334 2941