Sunday June 16, 2002, 10:00-12:00
Nineteen people attended in addition to Jean Hirons and Sally Sinn, including current participants and others who wanted to learn more about the initiative and the pattern creation process, particularly its impact on workflow.
In an initial round robin, the following was learned:
- Bob Allen reported that they are working with SIRSI and that Penn State wishes to participate
- Cornell has finished its creation of patterns and Cecilia Sercan is encouraging her colleagues to participate; she plans to start herself to lead the way
- Naomi Young reported that the University of Florida may soon be ready to rejoin the effort
- Harvard and U. Maryland will be bringing up Ex Libris this summer and UC Davis is also on Ex Libris and used patterns from Iowa
- Wen-ying Lu brought a pattern problem which she explained to the group. Frieda Rosenberg wrote it out and explained how it might be coded. The difficulty of this pattern made it clear how beneficial it is to share this effort!
Lu discussed the workflow documents that she and her group have prepared. Various participants discussed how they contribute patterns and how this relates to the creation of patterns within their ILS. For some it is more connected than others, depending on the system's ability to import patterns and the need for work arounds by a number of systems.
How does the need for patterns relate to electronic journals? Bob Allen noted that because of the cost of the electronic resources, there is a demand for more detailed holdings information. It was also noted that when a journal is checked-in, this data is available from the catalog and patrons expect to find this. It was also noted that users assume that the library has everything!
An article by Steve Zinc and others from the University of Nevada, Reno, was discussed (and a presentation will be given at NASIG). The article proposes that users want only the electronic and therefore there is no need to check in the print. It was noted that this approach would not work for many!
The group discussed the typical uses of predictive checkin, such as claiming, which is probably not needed for e-journals. On the other hand, it might only be at the point of checkin that you learn that a link doesn't work. Why wait for the patron to let you know; this is not good service. What about federal/state regulations that require accurate records of what is held? Digital archives were also addressed.
Robert Bremer suggested that ejournals should check themselves in. Jian Wang noted that III has the capability to automatically update the holdings for electronic journals in their new release.
Future of the workshop
Hirons asked whether we should continue this group. It was suggested that "workshop" is not a good term. Cindy Hepfer suggested that we might register with ALA as an interest group. This will be explored.