Minutes of the Annual Meeting
April 24, 1995
Oakland, California

(Meeting was held in conjunction with the Third Annual Innovative Users Group Meeting)

9:20 - 11:50 a.m.

Celeste Feather (Georgetown) welcomed all in attendance. She acknowledged that this double session conflicted with several other good sessions and explained that no law librarian should feel compelled to attend. Handouts were passed out and the speakers introduced:

I. Joe Wynne's Report on Release 9 Beta Test Site at the Univ. of Virginia Law Library.

UVA was glad to be a test site but they were not an ideal site. Release 9 was installed in October of 1994 at a difficult time for UVA:

  1. the budget wouldn't allow buying new features such as Windowpac and gopher clients
  2. the accounting department audited the law school
  3. the law school was restructured so that responsibility for all automated systems, including INNOPAC, as transferred to a centralized center
  4. Innovative was just moving into their new building

Despite the bad timing, UVA kept logs and sent status reports to Innovative. Installation had only minor problems which were corrected by III in 3-7 days. Problems included: inability to delete items from course reserves; key word searching resulted in out of memory messages; OCLC interface port was down for a week; overdue notices printed volume, copy and issue data twice; the password maintenance program was lost; totals in examine fines paid were wrong.

Some of the new features took months to get up and running. One sixth of the new features deal with optional products such as Export, Gateway or Z39.50 which UVA didn't have. The ten features Joe liked best from Release 9:

  1. increased ability to customize the system in-house
  2. number of information screens increase to 50 with no length limit
  3. browse screens can be locally defined
  4. patrons can place their own renewals and cancel their own holds
  5. increased staff browsing with jump, page forward/back
  6. patrons can search for similar items in author, title, series, as well as subject indexes
  7. OPAC display can be locally customized
  8. unattended backups
  9. diacritic display is improved
  10. diacritic printing is possible

"In summary, Release 9 has plenty of good solid improvements to the basic system but all the major new developments must be purchased separately."

Anne Myers (Boston University) asked if Joe would be a beta test site again. He would not because it created too much confusion and his OCLC interface was down too long.

II. Discussion on ABA statistics derived from INNOPAC led by Pat Callahan (University of Pennsylvania) and Christine Dulaney (Catholic University). [see handout]

  1. Joe Hinger (Detroit): AALL has a special committee on statistics that is revising the ABA statistics form. Two years have been spent on "what is a serial?"
  2. Anne Myers (Boston): In general, piece counts are harder than financial counts. We add new annual piece counts to old cumulative counts that are probably inaccurate.
  3. Suzanne Harvey (Seattle): The increased number of S codes allows for more coding (p=partial title; c=ceased title; d=dead title). The 985 can also be used.
  4. Marla Schwartz (American): The problem of how many titles vs. how many subscriptions should be easy for III.
  5. Pat Callahan (Penn): Because we have multiple check-ins on a bib, statistics can be easily distorted.
  6. Tom Jacobson (III): Does anyone use the new volume field to count pieces? Answer: No, because it is in the order record. General consensus was that it is a useless field
  7. Christine Dulaney (Catholic): Withdrawn volumes (question #6 on handout) are usually counted manually with hash marks. An automatic method (possible enhancement) would be for INNOPAC to ask why an item was being deleted (mistake, withdrawn) and store that information.
  8. Brian Quigley (Texas) Uses monthly statistical reports of b code 2 [catlevel]: (o=original, d=derived, r=revised) cross tabulated against material
  9. Christine Dulaney (Catholic) Title count (question #9) is usually done with cat date in bib record but this changes if it is overlayed. One library counts number of OCLC updates.
  10. ???: Another possible enhancement would be for INNOPAC to generate workload statistics for all transactions the way it now does for some when it says "Thank you for doing...
  11. ???: Multiple formats are a problem because there is no consensus of what ABA wants.
  12. Carole Hinchcliff (Ohio State): ABA statistics are fluid; different stats are requested each year. Therefore it isn't always wise to spend a lot of time coding for one factor. OHIOLINK required extensive coding which resulted in little value.
  13. Tom Jacobson (111): Innovative should be able to help with piece counts and withdrawals.
  14. Anne Myers (Boston): III was given an ABA form 3 years ago and they will be given a form this year. The ABA stats are not that different from ARL statistics.
  15. Mark Falk (Duquesne): Don't obsess about statistics! Do your best and turn them in
  16. Joe Hinger (Detroit): CIS title count is unfair if libraries that have money can afford to catalog them and count them as titles.

III. General Discussion led by Joe Hinger (Detroit).

  1. Weekend circulation to unregistered patrons is problematic. Alabama uses John Doe records but patron types can't be changed later when staff updates them. Naomi Goodman (Valparaiso) suggested paper registration on weekends. Celeste Feather (Georgetown) suggested having a cheat sheet of patron types available. Georgia Briscoe (Colorado) reports that student workers can correctly register patrons on weekends.
  2. Is anyone exporting INNOPAC records to other software for manipulation? No.
  3. Notes in the bib record do not always appear on the 1st screen. Suggestions: change the order of your public display, put them in the checkin record, make the Ist one say "read all notes", move fields around if they are the same tag.
  4. How to assure that supplements of reserve materials get to reserve? Suggestions: Be sure the checkin location for the reserve copy is correct; route it to reserve; include "reserve" in the call no.
  5. Table of Contents feature: no one is using it but we need to lobby legal publishers for this feature even though it is expensive.
  6. Electronic ordering is being used by Colorado (Georgia Briscoe), Ohio State (Carole Hinchcliff), and ? with Rothman, Hein and Gaunt. It saves time and labor. Be sure to put notes in "vendor notes" if you want them to go electronically.
  7. Electronic claiming is only available with Faxon or Ebsco currently. Rothman is working on it and will test with Colorado first.
  8. A list of each library's INNOPAC codes should be collected and made available at the Pittsburgh convention.
  9. Acquisitions lists are being created from INNOPAC and exported to e-mail at U.of Washington (Richard Jost), similarly at Mercer (Ismael Gullon).
  10. INNVIEW is being tried with CIS marc records at American (Marla Schwartz) and with Social Sciences Periodical Index by Colorado (Georgia Briscoe). Neither were very enthusiastic about this feature.

Submitted by Georgia Briscoe, University of Colorado Law Library