> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alex McIlroy
> Sent: 23 July 2012 15:42
> Many thanks for the email and the attached document. It appears that
> have completed a lot of work on what is proving to be a difficult area
> resolve. We do have a couple of questions here in Queen's University
> apologies if the answers seem quite straightforward!
I don't find anything straightforward in this area! I've been reviewing
the progress so far with our chief ILL person who is just back from
holiday. She showed me a fascinating page from the Innovative manual
which no longer exists on our server nor on CS Direct, though there is a
link from another page. All to do with which fields are used in the
"search the catalogue" option from the ILL form, and which fields are
transmitted via ARTEmail or to OCLC, and which fields are mandatory,
none of which is configurable! It's going to be hard to get something
which works for everyone, but we will give it a go. Firmer proposals
for all of this later this week I hope.
> You have listed the preferred field orders from the BL, the initial
> for fields and revised list of fields that we would like to see
> For a journal article request, for example, the BL has asked that the
> 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?
> article author is at Q1, will this be the first field that appears on
> going through to the BL?
I am assuming that the Q1, Q2, etc. field ordering will only affect the
order that the fields appear on the ILL WebOPAC request forms and in
the staff side, and the order in which e-mails to other suppliers are
generated. The major part of the work that Innovative are committed to
is to take those fields and rearrange them into the order the BL expect.
> Our second question is concerning the part details - the BL wants the
> Volume, Part and Pages all to appear on the 1 request line. As this
> information is collected in separate fields in Millennium, are they
> together into the 1 field when the request is sent to the BL?
This is covered, I think, by Innovative's proposals, which I did not
include in full in my document.
> Thirdly and lastly, what about requests for Government Publications
> Technical Reports? We would occasionally get requests for these and
> don't think they would be covered under Books, Journals or Conference
I am afraid I have been ignoring these because from our background at
Durham we do not have any experience of them. We force our users to
submit them as one of "Book", "Journal", "Conference Proceedings" or
"Book Chapter" and hope that they can convey sufficient bibliographic
information in the fields available.
The British Library do not give any recommendations as to the field
order for these types of request either. I see that Innovative's
default set of prompts (http://gsm.iii.com/products4_1_3.html ) is very
sparse, consisting of
Q1: Sponsoring agency
Q3a: When/where published
Q3b: Report number
So we probably won't have any problems about needing extra fields.
If you (or any other Millennium site) use these request types, and have
further field requirements beyond Innovative's defaults, perhaps you
would post to the list saying what they are. I can try then to fit them
into the BL's general requirements for ARTEmail. (I tried looking at
your forms, but your OPAC wants me to log in before getting to the form,
which is not the case for ours.)
Otherwise I think the requests would be transmitted in the order
Q1,2,3a,3b to the BL, much as they were before.
Similarly, I have ignored thesis requests (which are no longer accepted
by the BL anyway) and I am expecting that transmission of requests to
other suppliers will be unaffected. It's pretty much got to be as
otherwise it would require much wider consultation.
Hope that helps!