Here at Sheffield Hallam University we migrated to BLDSS a month ago and we are Millennium users.
The transition has been relatively trouble-free, with just a few difficulties, mostly surrounding intrays and translations.
Prior to the migration, we asked Innovative to make some small changes to our illjournal form, to help the output be more in line with the requirements of BLDSS.
We asked III to
• combine the Volume , Issue, Pages fields into one field
Volume / Part / Pages.
• to add an ISSN field
We also added an instruction to our Journal request page as to how to best use this new field ie
Volume / Part / Pages
For the best results enter details in this format
VOL 17 PT 1 PP 125-140
for Volume 17, Part 1, pages 125-140
We also asked for changes from our Open url resolver Serials Solutions 360 link, so that requests from 360 link automatically route the information to the correct boxes add the VOL PT PP into the field.
We now submit our journal article requests with fields in the following order:
TX line
Article author
Article title
Journal title
Year
Volume / Part / Pages
ISSN
eg
TXAN05004 S SED99
Anders, André
Deposition rates of high power impulse magnetron sputtering: Physics and economics
Journal of vacuum science and technology. A, Vacuum, surfaces, and films
2010
VOL28 PT4 PP783,
07342101
We recognise that III are currently working on the issues concerning the deployment of BLDSS, but other Millennium sites could ask for changes to their online request form fields as an interim fix.
It has worked well for us.
Pamela Johnson - Senior Information Advisor, Document Supply Services.
Caroline Thorpe - Senior Information Advisor, LIS Systems Team
Caroline Thorpe
Senior Information Adviser | Information Services Systems Team | Student and Learning Services
Sheffield Hallam University | Howard Street | Sheffield |S1 1WB
0114 225 4478
[log in to unmask]
Pamela Johnson
Senior Information Advisor - Document Supply Services Sheffield Hallam University Adsetts Learning Centre Level 7 Howard Street Sheffield
S1 1WB
Tel. 0114 225 2112
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for current and potential users of the Innopac system [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hurcombe, Emma
Sent: 24 April 2012 18:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ARTEmail, BLDSS and Millennium ILL
Hi Chris,
An update on this from Innovative was sent to your EIUG site contact last week. If this has not been received at Bangor can you let me know?
Regards,
Emma
Emma Hurcombe BA (HONS), PGDip ILM, MA
Systems Specialist
Library & Information Services
Aston University
Aston Triangle
Birmingham
B4 7ET
Direct dial: 0121 204 4503
Internal dial: 4503
Fax Number: 0121 204 4530
Library web page: http://www.aston.ac.uk/lis
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for current and potential users of the Innopac system [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C M Jones
Sent: 24 April 2012 17:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ARTEmail, BLDSS and Millennium ILL
Hello,
Is there any news about this yet?
Chris Jones
Bangor University
PHILLIPS M.E. wrote:
> Hello Lee,
>
> It's true that the BL say you can carry on exactly as before, but unfortunately that's just not true: they were forgetting the impact of systems like Millennium not sending the requests through in the preferred order. I suspect that the software developers for the new system were working to the published specification, and expected that everyone observed the "preferred" field order, which has never been obligatory.
>
> Although the ARTEmail guide we've been referring to in this discussion is dated November 2011, the preferred field order was defined quite a number of years before that. My first involvement with ILL was implementing the Aleph ILL module in the summer of 2006 at Dundee, and the preferred field order was the same then. I had the impression from my ILL colleagues at Dundee that the preferred field order had been in place for a number of years before that. It could even date back to ARTTel days, or to the dial-up system which preceded it.
>
> Here's a document from 2004 showing exactly the same field order:
>
> http://www.nii.ac.jp/CAT-ILL/about/infoill/pdf/artguide.pdf
>
> So Millennium has been sending the messages in a non-preferred format for at least eight years. I doubt that the preferred field order has ever been changed by the BL, but it's possible that there didn't used to be a preference stated.
>
> There are quite a number of statements in what you have quoted from the BL which suggest that the system will be more lenient and reject fewer requests. I think, however, that the lenience only extends to things like the 40 character limit per line, and the 11-line limit for the request, which Millennium is complying with anyway. We're still getting some requests rejected because Millennium has put too many blank lines in the middle of the request.
>
> Judith Walton, who's in charge of ILL here, tells me that we set up Millennium ILL in 2000. During the set up the library can choose what order the fields appear in the ILL forms, so potentially all of us Millennium users could have different fields defined and a different ordering. The messages Millennium sends to the BL simply follow the field ordering in the Millennium system and do not make any concession to the BL's preferred order. Judith thinks that the BL had a preferred field order back then, or soon after, at least, as we were aware we were deviating from it.
>
> If you were canny, therefore, you might have set up your fields to match the BL's preferred order. We did this for book requests, and have not had half so many problems with them under the new system. However, for journal articles, because of the large volume of ILLs being handled at Durham in those days, and the fact that they all had to be hand-keyed by staff, we set up the field order to match the common citation order. So our ARTEmail requests look like this:
>
> TXDR99999 S SED99
> Smith, Charlene M.
> Scripts: A Tool for Cognitive Rehearsal JOURNAL OF CONTINUING
> EDUCATION IN NURSING
> 2011
> vol 42 pt 12
> pp 535-536
> 0022-0124
>
> This is slightly different from what Leeds are producing: we have a combined volume/part field, whereas theirs are on separate lines. At some stage we looked into getting our fields into the order preferred by the BL but we were told by Innovative that the module would have to be set up from scratch again.
>
> The BL tell us they can always spot the ISSN, wherever it appears, so requests with ISSNs tend to work better. Their recognition software has been improving during the beta testing period, but we're still getting more rejections than we used to. I expect their software will spot things like "vol" and "pp", but these are not guaranteed to be present: it depends whether the user has keyed them into the request form, and whether our staff adjust the request before transmission. One sticking point is that the BL prefer the journal title to be on the first line after the request header. In our case it's on the third line, or (if the article title is long) the fourth, fifth or sixth line. Obviously it's rather hard for the BL to spot it, especially as many journals do not have the word "Journal" (or Revue, Zeitschrift etc.) in the title. It's far easier for their software if the journal title is in the right place.
>
> I notice that Millennium puts a space at the start of any line which is a continuation from the previous line, so this could in theory be exploited at the BL's end to re-join and identify the fields. But that would require a Millennium-specific development on the BL's part, and would not be in accordance with their specification.
>
> I think we need to approach this from as many angles as possible:
>
> 1. The BL may be able to improve their software still further. I don't suppose they would be keen on per-customer configuration, so it's going to have to be a more general approach. The question is, how general can we be about Millennium systems when the field order can be completely different?
>
> 2. Lobbying Innovative is most likely to yield results. I am told it worked (after a lot of lobbying) for Secure Electronic Delivery. Putting in calls to CS Direct as individual institutions, and talking to Graham and any other contacts, would be worth doing. But I think an approach by the EIUG committee would be useful too.
>
> 3. Can't think of any other angles! Except the desperate one of redirecting our ARTEmail requests to a local e-mail address, and reprocessing the files ourselves using a cunning piece of scripting. Technically possible but very much the last resort!
>
> At some stage, we need to agree a specification for the improvements we would like from Innovative. It would be useful to understand the range of Millennium request formats out there. How much variety is there among our systems? I think the approach has to be along the lines I outlined yesterday, with a template for each request type under the customer's control, allowing us to position the fields exactly as required.
>
> While we are about it, I would like to see a problem fixed in the request generation. I mentioned that we sometimes see blank lines in the middle of our requests. For example:
>
> TXDR99999 S FXBK99
> MAXFIELD, M
> SOLUTION AND SOLID-STATE STUDIES OF
>
>
>
> MOLECULAR CRYSTALS AND LIQUID CRYSTALS
> 1981
> vol 65 3-4
> pp 161-178
> 0140-6566
>
> In this example, the article title was quite long, and would have spanned four lines in total. However, the word after "OF" is a very long name of a chemical, which exceeds 40 characters. It seems that Millennium has worked out that four lines are required for the title, but when it is filling the buffer with the title text it bombs out when it hits this word which won't fit, and we end up with a gap in the middle of the request which the BL's system objects to. In this case it rejected the whole batch of 11 requests.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> From: This list is for current and potential users of the Innopac
> system [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leo O'Neill
> Sent: 27 February 2012 11:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: ARTEmail, BLDSS and Millennium ILL
>
> Matthew,
>
> Thanks for that, but this excellent bit of marketing by the BL (below) does seem to be saying in more than 1 place that I can continue sending ARTEMAIL requests in the same format I have been?
>
> Do you know when the field order changed (fields merged)? The ARTEMAIL guide below is dated Nov 2011, is this when BL changed the field order for ARTEMAIL to accomodate the new system?
>
> http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/atyourdesk/docsupply/help/bldss/replycodes/BL
> DSSguidetoARTEmail.pdf
>
> 2. Preparing for the new system
> 2.1. What do we need to do to use the new system?
>
> Nothing initially, and if you want to continue using ARTEmail to make requests to us you can still do this.
> However, if you wish to take advantage of the full range of benefits our new online interface will offer: searching, ordering, tracking and administrative tools… then there will be a number of processes involved to get you and your users ready to take advantage of all benefits.
> 2.2 Will it require any IT changes at our end?
> No IT changes are necessary.
> If you want to take advantage of the new web based interface, it should be noted that the site uses Adobe® Flash® Player.
> 4. Placing an order
> 4.1 Will I still be able to use ARTEmail to request items when the new system is launched?
> Yes! If a user would like to continue to request using ARTEmail they can. In fact requesting via ARTEmail has also been improved, thanks to improved back office systems fewer ARTEmail requests will be failed. Additionally, if your administrator chooses the ‘Fix Format’ option, when sending in batch requests if one request is formatted incorrectly the entire batch will no longer fail - only that particular order.
> If you request by ARTEmail you will still be able to track your orders using the administrative interface, and you can continue to receive daily intray reports by email.
> 4.2 Will the formatting restrictions for ARTEmail be less rigid?
> The formatting rules for ARTEmail requests remain the same though the rules have been relaxed so that the new system will reject fewer request.
> Regards Leo
> Leo O'Neill
> Head of Library Development
> University of Bedfordshire, UK
> Tel: 01582 743404 (fax 489325)
> Mb: 07912 999012
> [log in to unmask]
>
--
Chris.M.Jones [log in to unmask]
--
Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig / Registered Charity No. 1141565
Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dil wch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk
This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University.
Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk
|
