The balloting results are given below with items listed in ranked order by the number of "superdots" assigned. These reflect the items deemed to have highest priority for development. In the right margin, the number of regular dots are given to show items that were deemed important but not highest in importance. One item, remote access to customized menus, was removed from the ballot after discussion revealed that this could be done without development and there was no objection from any of the libraries that might not have customized menus for awhile.
| SUPERDOTS | ITEM | DOTS |
| 5 | Call # Index Redesign (browse & counts) | 11 |
| 4 | Hook-to-holdings for citation databases | 10 |
| 4 | Location-based searching | 7 |
| 3 | Download/print LUIS search results | 7 |
| 3 | Course reserve index in LUIS | 4 |
| 2 | Stats by call # range * | 8 |
| 2 | Keyword searching in tech mode | 6 |
| 2 | Search filters for date, language, format (kwb/mhi) | 8 |
| 1 | Amplified MHI index (loc/call# display) | 4 |
| 1 | Reverse chronological order for MHI subjects | 0 |
| Indexes for order, fund, invoice records | 7 | |
| Vendor name index | 6 | |
| Implement 5.0 aquisitions enhancements | 6 | |
| NOTIS as an inventory system | 3 | |
| Batch file transfer of OCLC-derived records | 1 | |
| Common commands for Menus ** | 1 | |
| Evaluate 5.0 circ and new table structure | 1 | |
| Dynamic conflict resolution (LC/MeSH) | 0 | |
| Change location of see also's | 0 |
* Note: discussion of this item resulted in it being modified to cover statistics in general (including circulation and database analysis) broken down finely by call number ranges. The analysis would be done annually and output would be both print and data so that local reports could be done.
** Note: discussion of this item resulted in agreement that the menus could be modified to allow basic LUIS commands such as START and STOP to be entered. Everyone realized this would mean giving up the more protected 2-character input field.
After the balloting, some discussion was held about just what features some of these items would require and what issues needed to be factored into the functional specifications. The following provides a summary of that discussion.
"Design" Notes for some of the top ranking enhancements
I. Hook to holdings
A. Hook is by ISSN match between citation and catalog
B. Hook would be to institution group (not processing or service unit)
C. From a known terminal: hook to associated institution group
D. From a remote terminal:
1. proprietary database - link to patron bar code institution
2. free access database - ask for institution group affiliation
E. Prompt user to broaden hook to SUS a/t index
F. Display the index screen if multiple bibliographic records match
the hook (necessary for multi-processing unit institutions)
II. Download and Print: divided into two separate operations
A. Download
1. Library:
- need selection mechanism (flag desired records)
- formats: short, full, MARC (via client freeware?)
- ASCII
2. Remote:
- specify destination
- validation option
B. Print
1. Library:
- selection mechanism
- formats: short, full
- specify style - no
- limits on printing: 10 - 50 ( one screen at a time?)
- table maps terminal to printer
2. Remote:
- specify destination
- validation option
III. Location-based searching
A. Applies to KW and MHI indexes; not union index
B. Filter before or after 5000 limit?
Answer: After if a way to continue and back up is given
C. Filter applies to bibliographic records, but once a record passes the
filter, the
holdings display will be the same as it is now; i.e., all copies for all
locations will
display in the order stored in holdings record.
D. Locations are defined by and for each institution group (map locations,sublocations
to
location groups)
E. Search scope set by menu choice until start or stop (or other menu choice)
F. Search scope set by override on a single search
G. Search scope has a default in terminal table which will allow terminals
to be
"assigned" to a particular location group
The discussion on location-based searching led to a general discussion on
the need to be able to get past the 5,000 limit for some searches. There
was general agreement that the search limit of 5,000 for MHI could be reduced
if there was a "Continue" function that let the user go past the
limit to the next set that matched the search.
The meeting ended informally as those who had long drives left when they
needed to while the design discussions were going on. Since these discussion
continued unabated as the group size dwindled, there wasn't a clear opportunity
to tell you all as a group how much we appreciated you participation and
your willingness to come together on such short notice for this meeting.
I don't know how much help you found the design discussion, but it helped
us a lot to hear your ideas and to be able to narrow down some of the expectations
so we can work with a more finite set of needs that might be do- able with
our staffing.
Michele Dalehite
and the FCLA staff
June 23, 1992