Kinetica Advisory Committee Meeting

11-12 November 1999
Agenda Papers


Agenda

  1. Welcome and introduction, apologies
  2. Minutes of the previous meeting and business arising, if any KAC/1999/2/6
  3. Director-General’s remarks
  4. Kinetica Financial Information (to be tabled) KAC/1999/3/2
  5. Kinetica Status Report KAC/1999/3/3
  6. Kinetica Business Plan 1998-2003: evaluation embargoed
  7. Kinetica Business Plan 2000-2005: draft embargoed
  8. VALA Ancillary day KAC/1999/3/6
  9. Kinetica elections KAC/1999/3/7
  10. Annual User meeting KAC/1999/3/8

For information

  1. Digital Services Project KAC/1999/3/9
  2. NLA draft strategic directions for 1999-2002


Kinetica Advisory Committee Meeting 18 & 20 July 1999

KAC/1999/2/6

Draft Minutes

Draft minutes of the Fourth meeting of the Kinetica Advisory Committee held at the Library, University of New South Wales on 18 July 1999 and at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney on 20 July 1999.

Present

Chairperson

Ms Helen Livingston
Deputy University Librarian, Deakin University

Member

Ms Sally Anderson
NSW Agriculture Library, Trangie

Ms Marian Bate
Principal Librarian, University of New South Wales

Ms Kaye Hill
Library and Information Service of Western Australia

Mr Philip Keane
Head, Library and Educational Information Services, Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science, Adelaide

Ms Jan Maslen
Associate Librarian (Technical Services), La Trobe University

Ms Sherrey Quinn
Libraries Alive!, Canberra

Ms Meredith Wallace
Manager, Information and Library Service, Parramatta City Library

Ms Jan Fullerton
Deputy Director-General (Acting), National Library of Australia

Mr David Toll
Assistant Director-General , Corporate Services, NLA

Officers in Attendance

Mr Andrew Wells
Assistant Director-General Kinetica, NLA

Ms Bryony De La Motte
Manager, Kinetica Customer Service, NLA

Ms Julia Trainor
Manager, Kinetica Implementation, NLA

Mr Rob Walls
Manager, Kinetica Marketing and Training, NLA

Minute

Ms Margarita Moreno
Kinetica Customer Service

The meeting opened at 11.15 am.

Agenda item 1

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

It was resolved:

KAC/1999/REC/1
That the minutes of the meeting of 26 February 1999, with the amendment recorded below, are a true and accurate record of that meeting:

Agenda item 7 ‘there was no requirement for trainers…’ should read ‘There was no requirement for trainees…’

Agenda item 2

Director-General's Remarks

The Director-General commented on the following matters:

Warren Horton reminded the Committee that he will retire from the National Library on 27 July. Pending the appointment of his successor, Jan Fullerton will be acting Director-General for three months with David Toll acting Deputy Director-General for one month. Mr Toll will then acting in the Director-General’s position at ScreenSound Australia for two months.

The National Library Executive structure is now: Pam Gatenby, Assistant Director-General, Collections Management Division, (Division 1); Margy Burn, Assistant Director-General, Australian Collections and Readers Services Division, (Division 2); Andrew Wells, Assistant Director-General, Kinetica Division, (Division 3); Warwick Cathro, Assistant Director-General, Information Technology Division, (Division 4); Helen Kon, Assistant Director-General, Public Programs Division, (Division 5) and David Toll, Assistant Director-General, Corporate Services Division, (Division 6).

The Digital Services Project Request for Tender was issued two weeks ago but was suspended on the same day. The RFT has now been formally withdrawn due to the National Library’s inclusion in the present IT outsourcing initiatives of the government. A revised tender taking this into account will be issued soon.

The National Library’s Collection Development Policy has now been published and is on the National Library Web site at http://www.nla.gov.au/policy/cdp/.

There were two principal reasons for deciding to moderate the Kinetica-l discussion list. Firstly some subscribers were sending emails to the list which would have been better dealt with by Kinetica Customer Support rather than sent to all list subscribers. Secondly, some subscribers were using Kinetica-l inappropriately as a vehicle for general comment on a range of National Library policies, which the Library had not anticipated.

Agenda item 3

Kinetica Implementation Report

Andrew Wells reported on recent developments in Kinetica services:

Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD)

There were two major reasons for delaying the implementation of the KDD service. Firstly, there was concern about the VDX Z39.50 interoperability with Kinetica. The effect of problems in this area is that whenever a large results set is retrieved from Kinetica, the system crashes. This problem should be fixed within the next week. Secondly, the software has performed poorly under load, being unable able to maintain stability under the contracted level of load. Fretwell-Downing has provided fixes, but these have not yet been satisfactory. Further load testing was carried out last Friday. The first test was successful but in the second the system crashed after six minutes.

Although lack of stability initially affected training courses, training is proceeding. Trainees are encouraged to continue using the training system to practice using the system. Users participating in the load tests are using this as an opportunity to practice their skills. With the experience of the KDD’s lack of stability gained in training and load testing, libraries have supported the decision to postpone the implementation.

The LIDDA board met two weeks ago, and agreed to a major revision to version functionality, which will delay implementation until February next year. KDD uses a subset of the VDX software used in the LIDDA implementation, so KDD has to work before LIDDA can be implemented.

The New Zealand Interloan service has experienced some problems, but is generally achieving their required load levels, which are lower than the Australian requirements.

The User Registration forms indicate more libraries are taking up KDD than previously used the ABN subsystem.

ILL payment scheme.
The tender for the payments system closed on 7 July and the responses are currently being evaluated.

Kinetica Web
The Update database will be upgraded to LibriVision 1.6 which is expected to resolve some of the problems, including timeouts. Slow throughput and perceived inefficiency in cataloguing are still an issue. There are plans for LibriVision developments including a direct command line for searching.

Use of the databases
People are still using ABN syntax in searching rather than taking advantage of Kinetica’s greater functionality. This is expected to diminish as familiarity with Kinetica increases, however we need to continue to educate users in the use of Kinetica.
The Interactive Web tutorial should be ready within a month or so.
Access to RLIN is proving quite popular. Innovative Interfaces are working on providing holdings display in CJK records through LibriVision.
Use of the databases is increasing weekly. There are over 1,000 sessions opened to Kinetica every day.

Kinetica Cataloguing Service
Version 3.2 of the Kinetica Client should be available to the Library for testing within the next two weeks. It is more Windows-like and will have more Z39.50 features. There is a perception that the client application is slow, however at the National Library the response is satisfactory. Productivity is increasing and should continue to improve.

Response times
These have improved considerably since the first weeks of the Kinetica service. There were three areas of the Kinetica system which adversely affected response times:

Despite these improvements, a number of customers continued to experience unacceptably slow response times across the network. A consultant was employed to visit seven sites and report on the response issues affecting these organisations. So far five sites have been visited and a variety of areas of slow data transmission have been identified. These include:

The Committee discussed this issue at length, and suggested the following actions:

Sherrey Quinn stated that so far all of the discussion has been about cataloguing and that Kinetica needs to meet the needs of Reference people as well. Mr Wells reported that ELiAS has been taking many of the issues discussed on the Kinetica-l for future releases. In addition the National Library is convening an Expert Advisory Group to discuss Reference issues. Roxanne Missingham from the National Library has been nominated for the group. Other membership has not yet been finalised.

User Agreement Over 600 agreements have been returned. There are 15 new users and only two or three libraries have cancelled their membership. These were small libraries which will be using ILANET instead. More ‘health’ libraries are joining Kinetica.

Communication with Kinetica staff The Kinetica mail box is receiving many questions about Kinetica services and usage techniques. The common questions and answers are being posted to the list. Moderation of Kinetica-l has been seen by some as censorship, although the National Library considers that it was a necessary step to reduce inappropriate postings.

Data migration. The migrated data was audited recently finding that 99.94% of the data had been successfully transferred to Kinetica. The remainder (about 6000 records in total) was divided equally between bibliographic records where some holdings failed to migrate and bibliographic records which failed to migrate because of data errors. Work is proceeding to correct these records and add them to the Kinetica database.

Agenda item 4

Annual Users Meeting.

Linda Luther, chair of the Annual Users Meeting, joined the meeting. The Director-General thanked Linda for agreeing to chair the Annual Users Meeting at short notice, when the elected chair, Jillian Beswick, had been unavailable due to ill-health.

The agenda for the Annual Users Meeting was discussed in detail and some changes recommended. For the parallel sessions facilitated by Kinetica Advisory Committee members, participants would be divided into three groups based on the initial letter their surnames. National Library staff would not attend the parallel sessions, to encourage free discussion. All groups would focus on the future, and the outcomes of these sessions would be used in the Committee’s November meeting consideration of the Kinetica business plan. Issues to be considered include:

On 20 July the Kinetica Advisory Committee meeting recommenced and Linda Luther reported on the Annual Users Meeting providing the Committee with feedback and highlighting the areas of concern to Users.

Ms Luther concluded her report by thanking the Committee for the opportunity to chair the meeting which she had enjoyed very much. Helen Livingston, with the endorsement of the Committee, thanked Linda for her excellent chairing of the meeting.

The Committee then discussed these issues in more detail.

Firewalls/response time/Kinetica Client.
It was agreed to group these together as it was the overall effect that was causing users so much frustration. The Committee also expressed concern that these access difficulties may cause gaps in the NBD if users stop contributing. There was a feeling these difficulties could reduce commitment to the NBD. In addition, increased outsourcing of libraries’ IT services is exacerbating the situation. The advice received from the Defence Signals Directorate is that each organisation must make a judgement on the acceptability of the risk. Kaye Hill suggested the National Library may consider encouraging the FLIN libraries to take out a site licence. The Committee agreed that response time is an area in which it is difficult to generalise. The variability of response time means the National Library will need to give advice on methods of improving access.

Commercial cataloguers are very unhappy of the lack of incentives and some have already advised they will not be cataloguing onto Kinetica. Sherrey Quinn suggested the National Library should let users know the future strategies for Kinetica so they may put the current situation into perspective.

Andrew Wells stated that the Library would continue to make changes to improve response time. The Library would undertake some response time tests with a range of other libraries in order to provide benchmarking information to show the range of possible response times. However, as the network component of response time is unpredictable, such information could only be a guide to the range, not a prediction for an individual sites.

Enhancements.
It was agreed that users would like to contribute to determining priorities for enhancements. Several options were considered as possible mechanisms for that advice, including an expert advisory group and state user groups. It was agreed that the user groups would be the better choice and that this would provide a focus for them.

Moderation of Kinetica-l.
There was some discussion about the change to the list. It was felt that perhaps changing the Kinetica help desk email address to kineticahelp@nla.gov.au could help to avoid confusion between it and the list, and could change the perception that the Library is heavily moderating the list. An archive for Kinetica emails will be established to assist libraries in retrieving earlier postings to Kinetica-l.

Agenda item 5

Future Directions for Kinetica Training

KAC/1999/2/5

Rob Walls spoke to his paper, highlighting some of the issues for training when Kinetica implementation is complete. The most important issue is to increase the quality of the training and in doing so consider different options for delivering the training including online delivery. There is a need to improve the quality control of training courses. This would be aided if there were a smaller number of training agents working with the National Library under more formal contractual arrangements. The National Library is proposing to change the approach to training. The new approach will incorporate service levels and performance measures and have a more commercial outlook. The Library expects to have a new tender for training later this year. The KineticaWeb online tutorial which is in beta testing now is also expected to impact on the demand for training.

It was resolved:

KAC/1999/REC/2
That the KAC recommends that the NLA take steps to:

Agenda item 6

Kinetica Charging and Budget

KAC/1999/2/3

Andrew Wells introduced the report and distributed additional financial information. So far 92% of customer libraries have chosen transaction based charging. This includes some larger libraries which were offered site licences. Libraries are concerned about being charged for lost searches and the $1,000 charge for Batch*Link. Some libraries feel disadvantaged because they are unable to contribute online for unavoidable technical reasons, and therefore cannot qualify for ‘full’ contributor status and the 30% rebate although they are prepared to contribute all of their holdings and original cataloguing in batch. The Committee agreed the National Library needs to reinforce the reasons that the charging had been set in this fashion, and to concentrate on the positive. The Committee agreed to review the charges after batch processing had bedded down. Discussion of batch charges was deferred to the next paper.

The Committee noted that the $1,000 registration charge for the Batch*Link service had been widely discussed at the Annual Users Meeting. Some of the options canvassed included varying the charge, removing the charge and breaking up the charge.

It was resolved:

KAC/1999/REC/3
The KAC recommends that the $1000 charge for registration for the Batch*Link scheme should withdrawn, and replaced with a charge of $250 per year, with the first payment to fall due when an organisation’s first file is loaded.

Agenda item 7

Batch*Link

KAC/1999/2/4

Julia Trainor introduced and updated the report.

Ms Trainor outlined some of the issues in batch loading. ABN had indexed local system numbers for matching purposes and Kinetica will need to do the same, but completion of this task is at least six months away. Small libraries can’t afford the cost of batch processing but could contribute online. One strategy may be to market KineticaWeb to special libraries. The Library plans to approach libraries with collections of value to the NBD, rather than waiting for those libraries to offer their files. Workflow issues will also need to be examined to see if there are other options open to libraries.

Agenda item 8

Other Business

Business for future meetings
November 1999
Kinetica Strategic Plan .
Elections, which are due between this meeting and the first meeting of 2000.

February/March 2000
Incentives will be reviewed as part of the overall review of charges at this meeting.

Annual Users Meeting feedback
Evaluation forms will be sent to all attendees of the Annual Users Meeting, asking for feedback on what’s missing, what could be improved and what they considered successful.

The Director-General remarked how well the Advisory Committee had worked and thanked the members for all their efforts and contributions.

Agenda item 9

Conclusion

The following agenda papers were embargoed:

Kinetica Charging and Budget KAC/1999/2/3
Future directions for Kinetica Training KAC/1999/2/5

The meeting closed at 3.00 pm.

Next meeting: 11-12 November at the National Library


Kinetica Status Report

KAC/1999/3/3

Membership

Fewer than 10 libraries have formally informed Kinetica that they will not transfer their ABN membership to Kinetica. The final analysis of those libraries which have not yet returned signed agreements may reveal more, but the number is not expected to be high. Some of these libraries were very small ABN users, and they plan to use Ilanet to access Kinetica on the few occasions they need to search the NBD.

The actual number of libraries registered with Kinetica will not be available until all the libraries which were transferred from ABN and have not yet returned a Kinetica registration form and those libraries which have not returned a user agreement have been contacted.

Implementation of the Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) service revealed a number of libraries which had incorrectly indicated on their user registration forms that they intended to use KDD. These libraries are being identified as libraries using KDD report ‘stalled’ requests which have been sent to these inactive libraries. Kinetica staff must process all requests sent to the inactive libraries, and suspend their KDD authorisation in the user registration module.

Kinetica Document Delivery service

A number of Libraries began using the Kinetica Document Delivery service (KDD) on 8 September. The service was officially launched a week later, on Wednesday 15 September. Within a fortnight the number of requests on KDD was comparable to ABN. ABN ceased for Interlibrary loans on 15 October. This was in order to give libraries time to process their requests, as request information was not migrated to the new system.

Users quickly identified response time as the major issue in KDD. A lot of effort has gone into fine tuning the system to improve response time. Users have recently commented that response time is much better.

There are 552 Organisation accounts in KDDS. This does not reflect the number of libraries that use the system, as a number of libraries have separate accounts for their branches. A fix to the Kinetica user registration system will enable an accurate count of the number of libraries using KDD.

Interlibrary loans activity is very close to ABN volume. September billing showed over 11,000 requests were created (3 weeks only) and in October there were over 15,000 requests.

The tendering process did not identify a viable solution to the Interlibrary loans payment scheme. The National Library has decided to develop a solution inhouse. It is expected that the service will be in place early in the new year.

User groups

Since the Annual Users Meeting in July, Western Australia and Tasmania have formed Kinetica user groups. There are now user groups in all states and territories; in some there are also separate groups focussing on cataloguing or document delivery. By the time of the KAC meeting, Kinetica staff will have attended meetings in all states and territories except South Australia and Queensland since the AUM. The Queensland group was active during ABN’s life, but appears dormant at present.

Other meetings attended to describe Kinetica services include:
Metropolitan Public Libraries Association
VICLINK
ALIA NSW Health Libraries
ALIA NSW Specials
Innovative Interfaces
InMagic

NBD data loading

Customer files
Batch*Link development was completed during the reporting period, and the service is now operational, with the number of libraries using it gradually increasing. The first files loaded in early September were in the abbreviated MARC format used for reporting holdings. They came from Deakin University which has now supplied approximately 10 000 holdings records. The University of Adelaide supplied the first files of full MARC records, and has now supplied about 8 000 records.

Test files have also been received from the universities of Melbourne and Queensland, which are both Innopac users, and the University of WA, a GEAC user. Feedback has been supplied on required changes. Test files from LaTrobe University and the University of Ballarat are expected shortly.

A companion service for those libraries which require a nonMARC format for reporting holdings update information is currently being developed, and is being tested with Unilinc.

Initial experience with testing and user feedback have led to minor modifications to the abbreviated MARC and nonMARC specifications. Specifications for all the formats are on the Kinetica Web site.

National agency files
The Library of Congress has recently installed a new library management system which is producing a large number of changed bibliographic records in its MARC record files. This has caused a dramatic increase in the size of the files to be loaded to the NBD and caused some delays in loading. National agency files are loaded as they become available.

OCLC
Test files have been imported via ftp from OCLC and testing their compliance with Kinetica requirements has commenced., It appears that these files will load successfully although fewer than 500 test records have been loaded to date.

Marketing

Kinetica has been represented at trade stands at all the major ALIA conferences listed below:

8th Asia-Pacific Law and Health Libraries Conference, 22-25 August, Hobart
Reference and Information Services Section (RAISS) Conference, 6-8 September, Sydney
13th National Cataloguing Conference, 13-15 October, Brisbane
Public Libraries Conference, 14-17 November, Perth.

Information flyers describing Kinetica service have been distributed. Promotional material for next calendar year produced now, building on the good reception the promotional materials produced this year have received. Most of these have been distributed at the Kinetica trade stands.

Arrangements for next year’s Annual Users Meeting are well underway. The meeting will be held on Monday 28 and Tuesday 29 August 2000 at the Hotel Sofitel, Melbourne. Similar to this year’s annual meeting, breakout rooms have been booked for parallel sessions.

Training

In response to the paper Future directions for Kinetica Training Kinetica sought legal advise on the current contracts drawn with the Kinetica training agents. The lawyers have advised that unless an agent has breached the current contract it is difficult to for the National Library terminate their contracts unless the agent voluntarily terminates the contract.

The next step from here would be to consider the possibility of approaching each agent to ascertain if they still wish to act as agents for Kinetica and to offer them the opportunity of voluntarily ending their contract on 1 July 2000.

An interactive KineticaWeb tutorial was launched from the Kinetica Web site in late September. Since its launch, 798 users have downloaded the Shockwave plugin so that the tutorial can be used online over the Internet; and 263 users have downloaded the tutorial to their PC’s. The interactive tutorial has been made available free of charge to anyone who wishes to use it. An evaluation form for the tutorial is also on the Kinetica Web site. At the time of writing, only 4 completed evaluations have been received. All commented favourably on the content of the tutorial. A notice will be posted on Kinetica-l encouraging a more people to provide feedback.

Since July, the demand for KineticaWeb, Kinetica Client and Kinetica Document Delivery courses has been gradually declining as more Kinetica customers are trained for these services. The larger states, Victoria and New South Wales are still offering courses for the last quarter of this year.

Documentation

All the manuals supporting the various Kinetica services are available from the Kinetica Web site for downloading in either Word97 or PDF formats. The KineticaWeb manual is available in html format and the Kinetica Client and Kinetica Document Delivery manuals will be available in these formats soon. All the user guides produced to date are available in html, PDF or Word versions.

Bryony De La Motte
November 1999


VALA Ancillary Day

KAC/11999/3/6

The National Library will take advantage of the presence in Melbourne of a large number of librarians attending VALA to provide a day of briefings on recent and planned developments in the Library.

The presentations will be in the Hotel Sofitel Auditorium, which seats over 300. This was the venue for the 1998 Kinetica presentation, and proved very satisfactory.

Presentations in the morning will focus on general National Library issues. The afternoon will be devoted to Kinetica issues. Mick Fortune, Marketing manager, ELiAS, will present information on development plans for AMICUS and LibriVision. There will be a break between sessions, and session start times will be announced to enable people to attend only the topics that interest them.

It is expected that the presentations will commence at 9.30am and conclude at 4.30pm, with a one hour break for lunch. The following general topics are being considered for the day’s presentation:
Welcome
NLA structure and strategic directions
Digital Services Project
Coordination and support/infrastructure issues
Development plans for AMICUS and LibriVision
Update on Kinetica and Kinetica service development plans
KineticaWeb presentation and demonstrations
Kinetica Client presentation and demonstrations
KDD presentation and demonstrations

Details of the sessions will be finalised closer to the presentations.

Bryony De La Motte
November 1999


Kinetica Elections

KAC/1999/3/7

Background

An election for the three elected positions on the Kinetica Advisory Committee was held in June 1998. To provide continuity of knowledge on the Committee, one of these positions was to be elected for three years and the other two for eighteen months. Thus the candidate elected first has a term which expires on 30 June 2001. The candidates elected second and third have terms which expire on 31 December 1999.

The election resulted in the candidates being elected in the following order:
Philip Keane
Jan Maslen
Sally Anderson

The terms of Sally Anderson and Jan Maslen will therefore end on 31 December. Both are eligible for re-election. An election for these two positions and the chair of the Annual Users Meeting will be conducted after the November KAC meeting.

All Kinetica customer libraries are eligible to nominate candidates and to vote in the election. However, experience from ABN indicates that only between 30 and 50% of eligible voters will actually vote.

Call for nominations

Nominations for the two positions will be called on kinetica-l and also on the Kinetica Client news module.

Distribution of papers

There are two options for distribution of the ballot papers

1. via the Kinetica Web site. Candidate information, election rules and ballot papers could be placed on the Web site, and their presence announced on Kinetica-l. Votes could be returned electronically, or printed and sent by mail or fax. Only mailed votes would be certain of secrecy. Again, ABN experience indicates that many libraries are willing to fax their votes, so secrecy may not be a major concern.

The advantages of this method are:

Disadvantages of this method are:

2. print and post the information to all Kinetica customer libraries. This is the method adopted for conducting all past elections.

The advantages of this method are:

Disadvantages of this method are:

Kinetica Division would welcome advice from KAC members on the acceptability of these options.

Election timetable

The elapsed time from the call for nominations to the counting of votes will be four weeks if the voting information is distributed via the Web site and five if distribution is via post. This consists of one week for announcement and receipt of nominations, one week for preparation of voting information and two (or three) weeks for return of votes. The process will need to be completed at least two weeks before the first KAC meeting of 2000, to allow travel arrangements to be made for the newly elected members to attend the meeting.

At the end of the year, with the summer holiday period approaching, it would be preferable to make the call for nominations immediately, to avoid the possibility that some potential candidates may not see the call and fail to nominate. The actual timetable could be

16 November call for nominations via Kinetica-l.
23 November nominations close
29 November papers distributed
15 December voting closes (if via Web)
16 December candidates notified
22 December voting closes (by mail)
23 December candidates notified

This schedule runs very close to the end of the year. However, commencing the process early in the new year may prevent some potential candidates from nominating, due to their absence on leave.

Bryony De La Motte
November 1999


Annual User Meeting

KAC/1999/3/

Minutes

The Annual Users Meeting minutes will be placed on the Kinetica Web site following their approval by the KAC. Linda Luther has made some comments, which will be incorporated.

Survey of delegates

A total of 220 delegates attended the 1999 Kinetica Annual Users Meeting. An evaluation form was sent to all the delegates, a total of 106 forms have been returned, a 48% response rate.

The general response has been positive with most delegates rating the meeting to be above average. Below is a table which records the ratings that users gave to the meeting. As can be seen from this table, of those who responded most felt that the meeting was a success.

 

Excellent

Above average

Average

Below average

Poor

 

No. of responses(%)

No. of response(%)

No.of responses(%)

No. of responses (%)

No. of responses (%)

Overall meeting

10 (9.5%)

62 (58.5 %)

26 (24.5%)

   

Meeting venue

34 (32 %)

60 (57 %)

11 (10.5 %)

1 (1 %)

1

 

Meals and refreshments

33 (31 %)

52 (49 %)

17 (16 %)

2 (2 %)

1 (1 %)

Meeting content

11 (10.5 %)

48 (45 %)

44 (41.5 %)

2 (2 %)

 

Opportunities for discussion

15 (14 %)

49 (46 %)

33 (31 %)

6 (6 %)

 

Role of Kinetica staff

27 (25.5 %)

64 (60.5 %)

15 (14 %)

   

Parallel sessions

12 (11.5 %)

54 (51 %)

27 (25.5 %)

6 (6 %)

 

Cocktail reception

19 (41.5 %)

19 (41.5 %)

8 (17 %)

   

The survey also asked delegates to comment on certain aspects of the meeting. Below are some of the common comments made. Comments are not listed in any order:

Venue
Excellent venue – central location, easy to access
Food was excellent
Lack of seating for lunch

Parallel sessions
Parallel sessions should be based on subject matter, eg cataloguing, searching and inter-library loans
Request for Kinetica staff to be present to respond to questions at parallel sessions
Theatre too big for parallel session
Parallel sessions should be longer

Questions on notice
Questions on notice too detailed – many commented that some of the questions could have been answered on kinetica-l
Questions were repetitive, tedious and operational and not of interest to the whole group
Questions on notice to be circulated in advance, either with agenda papers or be made available at the registration desk Responses to questions on notice not thorough ("we knew more than what we were letting out")

Agenda
Cataloguing issues dominated, not enough time was devoted to KDD
Less presentations by Kinetica staff and more opportunity for customers to ask questions
Less background information about Kinetica – "users should know all this if they have been keeping up to date with the discussion list"
Too much emphasis placed on the Client.

Kinetica staff
Presentations by Kinetica staff was appreciated
Willingness of Kinetica staff to listen

Other comments
While the talk by Mike Fortune was interesting, many would have like his talk to be tailored to the Australian scene. Insist on people making comments or asking questions to use microphones
KineticaWeb tutorial – those who played with it thought it was good
Delegates enjoyed networking with Kinetica staff and other customers
CJK meeting rushed
2 days rather than 1 ½ days – some sessions too rushed

Some of the more unusual or interesting comments were:

A representative from Fretwell Downing should have been present to explain the delays
Toilet paper was like sandpaper
Cobalt blue background to PowerPoint screen made it hard to read screens.

From the above comments the following should be given some consideration for next year’s meeting:

Have seated lunches (this will be possible at the venue selected for next year)
Parallel sessions should be based on subject matter

More time devoted to parallel sessions since a lot of our users got a lot out of it
Chairperson to insist that people use microphone or Kinetica staff to walk around with microphones (sometimes difficult when few Kinetica staff are available)
Weed out questions on notice so that only general questions are presented
Agenda is balanced so that all three services have equal weighting
Possibility of Kinetica staff to be present during parallel sessions to answer questions
Possibility of questions on notice to be available at the registration desk

Other comments

Following the AUM, most state user groups received reports on the it and discussed the meeting in general. The Victorian group recorded detailed comments on the meeting in the minutes posted to Kinetica-l. These comments are repeated below:

One item to emerge from the Annual Meeting had been the role that state Users Group could and did play.
It was felt that the Elias representative had been limited in what he could present because of a lack of technical knowledge. However, it was useful to see Kinetica in the context of Elias’ other customers, and also to learn about future developments. There was some discussion about the usefulness of this particular presentation. Generally it was felt that he had listened to the audience and that we had gained some information, although it was felt that the system had been designed by programmers who just wanted it to work. There was general disappointment that IBM had not spoken at all and it was therefore unclear as to what their role was.
The wish list presented by Julia Trainor had been very good. We wondered if it could be posted to kinetica-l with annotations as to what was possible and what was not.
Generally speaking the font size and spacing had been a hot topic, as was the amount of mouse use required.
Discussions about end-user access to Kinetica had been interesting. There was now an Expert Advisory Group on reference use and there would be trials this year. Julie Marshall of La Trobe University was a member of this group.
It was noted that there had been a big attendance and that the next Annual Users Meeting would be in Melbourne in the spring of 2000.
The National Library sessions had been too long and there had not been enough time for questions. The small breakout groups had been good. Once again it was felt that it should be more of a Users Meeting, although it was noted that papers from Users had not been proposed and that the National Library would be most welcoming to anyone who wished to present a paper.
It was felt that the whole authorities issue was currently in the too hard basket. It was agreed that the name-title bug was a disaster.

It was noted that the first upgrade was due in September and the next version was due early next year. The Secretary was asked to find out when the next upgrade was due and what will be fixed in it.
Access to LC is currently only available through RLIN. LC have closed LOCUS and no alternative has been provided. Alternatives were discussed. DRA is OK but is not as good and MARC records cannot be obtained from it. It was agreed that what libraries needed was access to LC authorities in MARC format.

Annual Users Meeting 2000

The 2000 meeting will be held in Melbourne on 28 and 29 August. The Hotel Sofitel has been chosen as the venue.

All these comments will be considered in planning for the next AUM. In addition, Kinetica Divison would welcome further comments from KAC members.

Bryony De La Motte
November 1999


Digital Services Project

KAC/1999/3/9

Introduction

Two of the National Library’s key directions are:

to respond to the challenge of collecting and preserving significant Australian electronic information resources; and

to digitise selected Australian original materials and make them widely accessible through the Internet.

There are significant challenges involved in the preservation of information resources published originally on the Web ("born digital" resources) so that they can be accessed by the researchers, students and public of the future. Rapid changes in technology mean that it may be impossible for Australians of the future to access to that part of their national heritage which is being created today in digital form.

To support its goal in relation to these materials, the Library in 1996 initiated the PANDORA Project (Preserving and Accessing Networked Documentary Resources of Australia) which developed a proof-of-concept archive to enable long term preservation and access to significant Australian online publications.

To support its goal of improved access to original materials, the Library has created "digital surrogates" for some of these materials. For example, the Library now routinely digitises new pictorial acquisitions and makes them available through its IMAGES1 service. Digitisation creates the possibility of enhancing access by making these collections accessible through the World Wide Web.

The Library has undertaken these measures in the context of the development of its web site as a means of providing and enhancing access to its collections. The enhanced access has involved the provision of services such as web-based searching of the Library’s catalogue, manuscript finding aids, national directory and locating services and subject gateway services.

Over the next three years, the Library will aim to:

migrate key digital collections, including PANDORA and IMAGES1, to a robust and sustainable systems platform;

make significant progress in migrating other digital collections, including oral history sound recordings, digitised maps and digitised manuscripts;

implement resource discovery services (supporting standards such as Z39.50 and the Dublin Core metadata set) for digital collections, including shared discovery services for resources such as pictorial images;

implement a national facility which supports the registration of Australian electronic publications, including support for persistent identifiers; and

identify and develop longer term strategies to ensure the accessibility of digital collections in the face of future changes in technology.

The Digital Services Project

The Digital Services Project is the Library’s key strategy for ensuring that the PANDORA initiative is developed into a fully functioning service, and that services such as IMAGES1 are based on a more robust systems platform. It will also provide a medium term solution to preserving the accessibility of the Library’s digital collections in the face of rapid changes in technology.

The Project is also aimed at supporting the Library’s cooperative activities with other libraries, with publishers and with other cultural institutions. It will enable the Library to put in place a national service through which digital publications can be identified and registered by publishers. It will also support projects in which the Library and other institutions provide cooperative access to significant Australian digital collections, such as digitised pictorial collections.

For this reason the services which flow from the Digital Services Project will, to an extent, complement the Kinetica service. In the longer term, these services will also support access to the content of Australian information resources, including those indexed by the Library in services such as APAIS (Australian Public Affairs Information Service).

The Digital Services Project is intended to lead to the acquisition by the Library of new software and hardware, or of new services. It is likely that the major components of any new computer system will be outsourced. As with Kinetica, the Library is pursuing a "buy not build" approach, in which any software development would be kept to the minimum required to ensure the integration and basic functioning of the system components.

The Information Paper

When the Library issued its Information Paper for the Networked Services Project (later Kinetica) in February 1997, it foreshadowed a procurement process for systems which would enable it to manage and deliver access to its digital collections. These facilities were removed from the scope of the Networked Services Project when the Request for Tender was issued in May 1997. However, the Library began to work on a separate procurement process for these facilities in the first half of 1998.

Through this process, the Library developed an Information Paper on the Digital Services Project, which it released on 16 December 1998. The Information Paper represents a comprehensive statement of the Library’s vision for the delivery of its digital services in the medium term future. The Library sought comment on the Information Paper from potential suppliers and from other libraries, including state and national libraries, and delivered a presentation on it in Sydney on 18 January 1999.

Due to the extent and complexity of the issues raised by the Information Paper there were, as expected, a relatively small number of comments. None of the comments raised any doubts about the appropriateness of the Library’s overall requirements.

The Library identified, in its Information Paper, six functions which should be delivered through the Digital Services Project. These were:

Collection (the collection of digital publications from the Web or from physical format sources, their conversion to a standard format, and the extraction of associated "metadata" or basic descriptive information about the publications).

Digital Object Storage and Delivery (the storage of digital objects and associated copies, provision of access to the objects via a Web interface, and collection of transaction data to support billing and royalty payments).

Object Management (in which collection managers maintain "curatorial information" about digital and non-digital resources, maintain and link this data at the collection, item and sub-item level, and maintain the gathering schedule, access conditions and other administrative data about each resource).

Administrative Support (the registration and authentication of users, and the generation of management information and billing reports).

Metadata Repository Services (the building and maintenance of metadata repositories, support for powerful text retrieval, and support for a system of persistent identifiers which users to reliably find a resource by citing its name).

Gateway Services (through which searches are targeted at multiple databases based on standard search protocols, queries are launched through a Web interface and routed to these databases).

Together, the first three functions will support the acquisition, management and preservation of the Library’s digital collections. The fourth function will be of particular importance in supporting the delivery of those digital resources where payment and copyright management are involved. The fifth and sixth functions will support access to digital resources, including shared access through cooperation with other institutions.

The procurement processes

In the second quarter of 1999 the Library considered the nature and scope of the procurement action for the Digital Services Project. The Library’s aim was to reduce risk to a minimum, by proceeding with the Project in a series of manageable steps.

The Library decided to:

narrow the scope of the Request for Tender by removing some of the functions and by treating them through alternative processes, or by deferring them;

require the successful tenderer to deliver two priority services (PANDORA and IMAGES1) through the provision of a Digital Collection Management System; and

reduce the priority of some of the requirements for this System.

Notwithstanding these decisions, the Library regards the Information Paper as a valid statement of its long term requirements. The procurement processes have referred to the relevant strategies and standards contained within the Information Paper.

Removal of some functions

The Library removed the requirement for an integrated solution to the Administrative Support function, because the Library recognised that it will be very difficult for a tenderer to deliver a common Administrative Support System for all services. It may be possible to implement a common system in the future, as technical standards are developed.

The Library decided to acquire the Metadata Repository Services through a Request for Quotation process separate from the main Request for Tender. This step recognised that many potential tenderers for Metadata Repository Services would be inhibited from tendering if there was an expectation that they should also tender for all of the other functions. The Library is confident that it will be able to link the Metadata Repository Services to the other functions through the standards specified in the Information Paper.

The Library decided to defer the acquisition of the Gateway Services, unless they could be acquired as a by-product of the Metadata Repository Services.

Delivery of priority services

The Library will require the successful tenderer to migrate a small number of existing services to the new digital services architecture. The Library has decided to require:

the migration of the PANDORA proof-of-concept archive to a permanent facility; and

the migration of the management facility for its collection of digitised pictorial images (IMAGES1).

Together, PANDORA and IMAGES1 provide sufficient diversity to provide a reasonable test of the new digital infrastructure. At a later stage further digital collections, such as appropriate portions of the Oral History collection, would be migrated by the Library to the new platform.

The Library has required tenderers to propose complete solutions for PANDORA and the IMAGES1 management system. Consequently, in the Request for Tender, the Library treated the first three functions (Collection, Digital Object Storage and Delivery, and Object Management) as a coherent Digital Collection Management Service. This aims to ensure the integration by the successful tenderer of these three core configurations.

Reducing the priority of some requirements

In order to reduce the level of its requirement and to minimise the risk involved in the Project, the Library has made a number of requirements non-mandatory. It did this for the lower priority requirements, and in those cases where it is clear that suitable products supporting these requirements are not yet available in the market place. For example, the more advanced Administrative Support services, such as those required to support billing, copyright management and royalty payments, were flagged as non-mandatory requirements.

Progress on procurement

The Library issued a Request for Quotation for a Metadata Repository and Search System on 5 June 1999. Responses were received on 12 July 1999. Following an evaluation of the responses, the Library announced on 12 October 1999 that it had selected the Blue Angel MetaStar Enterprise software to develop, maintain and deliver its metadata repository and search services supporting the Library's digital service delivery. The Blue Angel software supports standards such as Z39.50 and XML, which should ensure hat it will interoperate with other software products that the Library is using.

The Library will use the Blue Angel software to migrate and further develop search services for the Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts (RAAM), IMAGES1, ImageSearch and other key services requiring access to metadata repositories using standards such as Dublin Core.

The Library issued a Request for Tender for a Digital Collection Management System on 23 August. Responses were received on 18 October. The Library is currently evaluating these responses. It aims to complete the evaluation by February 2000 and to complete contract negotiations by June 2000.

Conclusions

The Library aims to ensure that Australians of the future will have access to that part of their national heritage which is being created today in digital form. To that end, it has initiated the Digital Services Project.

The Project is the Library’s key strategy for managing its future digital collections. The Project will lead to the acquisition of a robust computer architecture allowing the Library to collect, manage, preserve and provide access to its digital collections, including both "digital surrogates" and "born digital" resources.

The Project is also the Library’s key strategy to support its cooperation with libraries, publishers and other cultural institutions in registering and providing networked access to digital resources.

Warwick Cathro
October 1999