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
|