IUG 2001 Conference Proceedings

Table of Contents

Session: I8/J12

INN-Reach Enhancements Discussion

Anita Cook, OhioLink

Nancy Nathanson, ORBIS
Sandy Westall, Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Representatives from all 10 INN-Reach systems, interested observers, and Ann Rakes, Sonya Walters, and Greg Isernhagen from III joined Anita, Nancy, and Sandy for a fast-paced discussion of enhancement requests proposed by INN-Reach users.

First Sandy Westall gave a review of INN-Reach enhancements already planned by III for the 2001 and 2002 releases. Sandy explained that these are preliminary announcements, and that III would also like to take feedback from INN-Reach users into account for finalizing any decisions. 2001 enhancements include adding new OCLC encoding levels 3 and 4, and implementing "smarter holds" (algorithm will look not only at request balancing by library, but will first decide which item has the least number of holds, then which item has earliest due date). (See handouts for details on Release 2001 INN-Reach enhancements and explanations of their relation to local III system 2001 enhancements.)

After Sandy's presentation, Nancy led the group in deciding which of the users' proposed enhancement requests to forward to III and what priority to give each request. Though everyone was invited to participate in the discussion, only the official representative from each of the 10 INN-Reach systems could cast a vote. (See http://libweb.uoregon.edu/orbis/staffhome/enhance_req,2001proposed.htm for the list of proposals.)

Ten proposals were eliminated because they were already included in III's enhancements announced for either Release 2001 or Release 2002. Another 6 proposals were eliminated after discussion by group decision.

Seven proposals for the Catalog module were approved. Catalog proposal 3 addresses the display of system-owned resources. Discussion of the proposal raised other suggestions for solution to the problem and also revealed that the enhancement's perceived priority was directly related to whether a system had any system-owned resources. It was decided that Catalog proposal 5 should be made an optional feature: some systems prefer to display all libraries' holdings on the first screen of the bib record rather than having to click on "X libraries have this item", but discussion revealed that other systems did not want to change the display. Catalog proposal 8 to create a report of records with 019 fields that match 001 fields in other records was approved, and the MOBIUS system reported that they have already used the 019 field as a match point for record merger with success in the INNOPAC system for one of their library clusters.

For the Circulation module 19 enhancement proposals were approved. Requests that were voted first priority include: exclduing items with status "returned" from the count of maximum items for patrons; printing the library name (not just the system code) on overdue notices; and refining the "in transit" status to distinguish transit between borrowing and owning institutions from transit between different locations *within* an institution. Other requests that were chosen to go forward include: request balancing and smarter holds *within* an institution's various locations; abilitiy to move unfilled requests from INN-Reach to other ILL systems; support for home delivery to patrons; refinements to the information shown in circulation status reports and other statistical reports; and improvements to the counters that keep track of the number of items checked out to patrons.

The URL for the draft that emerged from these meetings will be posted on the INN-Reach listserv.

Diana Brooking, Univ. of Washington Libraries
Jill Palmer, Washington State University