NCIP

Standing Committee In Person Meeting April 25-26, 2012 Winchester, VA

Table of Contents
Attendees ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Implementer Updates .............................................................................................................................. 2 Defects and Change Requests ............................................................................................................... 3 User Address Role Type scheme .................................................................................................... 3 Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog ............................................ 4 Loaned Item Types ............................................................................................................................... 4 How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)? ............... 5 NISO SIP Working Group ................................................................................................................... 6 Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction ...................................................................... 6 NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP ............................................................ 7 Implementers Registry ........................................................................................................................... 8 Informal Gathering at ALA Annual ..................................................................................................... 9 Deconstructing NCIP Presentation ................................................................................................. 9 Next Meeting ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP ....................................................................................... 10

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 1 of 10

Attendees
Peter Collins, BorrowDirect John Sandstrum, College Center for Library Automation Rob Walsh, EnvisionWare (Maintenance Agency) Mike Dicus, Ex Libris (Chair) Randall Cook, eXtensible Catalog (attended remotely Wednesday morning) Eric Leckbee, Innovative Interfaces John Bodfish, OCLC (attended remotely Wednesday afternoon) Tony OBrien, OCLC John Barr, Polaris Library Systems Roert Gray, Polaris Library Systems Kevin Stewart, Relais International Kelli Schoneck Benitez, TLC Dave Faler, TLC Juli Marsh, TLC Wednesday, April 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Implementer Updates
Ex Libris has three products that use NCIP (Voyager, Aleph, and Alma). Voyager and Aleph use NCIP v1, while Alma uses NCIP v2. Their most recent integrations are with Relais International and OCLC. CCLA uses NCIP as a vehicle for connecting various ILS for state-wide resource sharing. CCLA is in the process of merging with FCLA; CCLA will cease to exist, but the new, larger group will offer a larger set of services to a broader audience. Polaris Library Systems is working to integrate with several vendors including Innovative Interfaces, OCLC, and Relais International. A recent implementation with OCLC to do authentication was plug-n-play. Polaris is aware of a DVD dispensing vendor who is doing authentication via NCIP, and Equinox may also be preparing to implement NCIP. Polaris has done authentication with NCIP for CybraryN for some time. Relais International is currently testing with Polaris and Ex Libris Alma. Innovative Interfaces has completed work to integrate with Relais, and they have installed in several libraries in various regions across the country. Innovative has plans to extend Relais integration to Relais ILL product in addition to the resource- sharing product. NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012 Page 2 of 10

OCLC has products using both NCIP v1 and NCIP v2. NCIP v2 is used both internally and externally. They are currently working on interoperating with Ex Libris (Alma and Voyager), and Polaris. Also, they have added another service (Cancel Request Item) to the four services in place for Biblionix Apollo. BorrowDirect is a Relais and Innovative Interfaces user. They currently use eSIP with Voyager, but hope to be able to migrate eventually to NCIP. They also use ILLiad and Aleph. ILLiad is beginning to work on an NCIP interface with Aleph using NCIP v1. TLC is beginning to see interest in Florida for NCIP integration with OCLC WorldCat, and they are continuing to work with eBook vendors. They are implementing with III at Melcat and are preparing to test with OCLC. A library in Maryland is switching to Relais International and presumably either is or will be using NCIP. They are waiting on Baker and Taylor to resume NCIP development. EnvisionWare has struggled to justify NCIP development for self-service relative to SIP. However, with recent developments surrounding SIP 3.0, EnvisionWare is motivated to do an NCIP implementation to show that it is a viable alternative to SIP. Walsh reported on behalf of the NCIP Maintenance Agency. The NCIP 2.02 revision has been approved by the Standing Committee, and it is now at ballot before the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee. Once approved there, it will go before the NISO membership for approval.

Defects and Change Requests

User Address Role Type scheme

In previous NCIP versions, this scheme was explicitly defined and had items for mailto (email) and tel (telephone). The 2.02 revision, though, does not contain these elements. It is possible that the table cell at the bottom of p.27 in Part 2 of the standard was inadvertently cut off. Walsh will review the source document to determine if any data was inadvertently omitted. After further review, it was determined that User Address Role Type has always had the scheme members that it has in the 2.02 revision. Gray realized that he meant the Electronic Address Type, not User Address Role Type. Electronic Address Type is a reference to an external IANA scheme, and that scheme does include the mailto and the tel elements.

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 3 of 10

Potential Future Change Requests From eXtensible Catalog

Cook indicated that there may be a new project within the XC, and a new element might be needed to indicate a renewal item count in Loaned Item (specifically, renewals remaining). The project is likely to find additional new change requests over the next six months or so.

Loaned Item Types

In an ILL environment where a local system is accepting books, a loaned item arrives at the library for a local patron. The loaned item needs to be circulated. Normally, the ILL message body will tell the local system when the item is due. However, if the message included the material type, the local system could calculate the appropriate loan period. We need to be clear about who is responsible for determining the due date. Polaris, for example, provides a generic, default due date since it does not know the item type from the Accept Item message. Stewart suggested using medium type in Bibliographic Description in Item Optional Fields to convey this information. Collins asked if that information is sufficient to drive the loan rules, including the calculation of the due date. He further indicated that BorrowDirect has used medium type to assign an item to a location, and then the location can be used to determine the loan rules. Gray indicated that some messages, like Check Out, dont carry Item Optional Fields. Stewart noted, though, that with a check out, the item is already known. Only a Create Item or Accept Item needs the Item Optional Fields and, more specifically, the medium type. When Accept Item is used for Check Out (something done by eBook vendors using Requested Action, for example), then the Accept Item response cannot convey the due date. OBrien suggested that a careful reading of the definitions of the allowed values in the NCIP Requested Action Type Scheme in Part 2 suggests that Requested Action Type was intended to convey responsibility for a future action, not an implied request to perform that action. (OBrien specifically indicated that his interest in this topic was simply to ensure clarity in the protocol and he has no opinion as to which interpretation should be preferred.) As such, an Accept Item with Requested Action Type equal to Circulate would not result in a check out; therefore, no due date would be necessary or relevant until the item is actually checked out. (There does seem to be a discrepancy between the wording of the Requested Action Type element in Part 1 and the definitions of the values given in Part 2. Part 1 seems to imply that Accept Item with a Requested Action Type equal to Circulate does cause the receiver to perform a check out.) Gray explained that Polaris creates a bibliographic record and an item record, and the item is then circulated to the patron upon receiving the Accept Item message. NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012 Page 4 of 10

Using eBooks as an example, the eBook supplier can send an Accept Item message to the ILS, and the ILS circulates the item to the patron. It seems that with physical media, most ILL implementations want the ILS to create a hold for the item, and then use a Check Out message when the patron picks up the held item. Neither of these use cases really requires a due date element in the Accept Item message or response. Create Item predates Accept Item, and Accept Item was created to couple the creation of an item with the reason why the temporary item record is being created (i.e., the intended future transaction). Create Item could still be used if the use case required a decoupling of the creation of the item record from the intended future transaction. It was noted through discussion that most implementations today perform in accordance with the Circulate And Notify Requested Action Type since the ILS manages the circulation transaction. However, most ILL vendors send Hold for Pickup and Notify since they specifically want the ILS to create a hold record. It was noted that Circulate And Notify does not preclude the creation of the hold record in the ILS. Instead, it simply assigns the responsibility for managing the future circulation transaction to the ILS. The ILS is free to create a hold record if it so desires. The group agreed that this interpretation of the Accept Item and Requested Action Type element is different from the way most systems are implemented. Walsh reminded the group that any change to the standard requires a proposal, discussion at a future meeting, and a vote. Therefore, someone will need to draft a proposal for a specific change, probably either a clarification of the wording in Parts 1 and 2 for Requested Action Type or the addition of due date somewhere inside the Accepted Item Response. OBrien volunteered to draft revised wording in both Part 1 and Part 2 surrounding the use of Accept Item, particularly when used with Requested Action Type.

How would one use NCIP to edit an item record (i.e., change its location)?
It should be technically possible to use Update Item to do this. The responding system would need to implement Update Item and be able to handle any and all elements allowed in the initiation message. There is some ambiguity in the usage of Update Item with respect to the Delete Item Fields and the Add Item Fields. How is a specific field updated? Does it first need to be deleted and then re-added? Through discussion, it was noted that updates are performed using combinations of Delete Item Fields and Add Item Fields within Update Item. The responder may be able to optimize its own implementation by simply changing the data if it determines that the request is to delete and add the same field.

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 5 of 10

NISO SIP Working Group

Walsh explained the history of the recently approved NISO work item to create a working group tasked with reviewing SIP 3.0 and making a decision about whether it should become a NISO standard. He reviewed with the group the negative comments received during the work item ballot period, and he explained that one of the questions that will need to be addressed by the working group will be the relationship between a NISO SIP and NCIP. Theoretically, the new working group could decide that SIP will be the NISO standard for self-service circulation, or the working group could decide that self-service should remain a facet of NCIP, thus leaving a questionable role for SIP within the NISO portfolio. Collins, though, described a use case for a self-service kiosk that could be used to allow a patron to request items from other libraries. Would this application be a self-service app or a resource-sharing app? OBrien raised a hypothetical scenario whereby 3M might become dissatisfied with a future NISO version of SIP and decide to no longer support the NISO version. Would they then fork the protocol and resume development on their own version of SIP that might better fit their own ideas for its evolution. That would leave the industry with not two but three competing implementations. Marsh recognized that having NISO push the responsibility for self-service from NCIP to SIP could ultimately increase costs to libraries by requiring them to maintain two subscriptions, one for a SIP interface and another for NCIP. This would be a potential disservice to the industry. OBrien added that this might violate OCLCs mandate to pursue lower costs for libraries.

Review Purpose, Structure, and Future Direction

Dicus explained that the purpose of this section of the agenda is to understand what work we are and should be doing and whether we should continue meeting in person twice each year. Also, as a follow up to the SIP 3.0 discussion from earlier, we should discuss this groups role with respect to the new SIP working group. The group reviewed the reasons why it meets twice each year. Historically, there was an emphasis on significant revisions to the standard, community education about the standard, and promotion of the standard to the industry. Recently, though, the number of proposed changes has been diminished, and less emphasis has been placed on education and promotion. One of the roles of this group is to help initiators and responders better understand how each system works and how to interpret the protocol in relation to the implementations. These kinds of discussions tend to be very ineffective when conducted on the list serve. NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012 Page 6 of 10

 The group agreed that valuable discussions occur at in-person meetings that would not happen in other contexts, and, as a result, the group should continue to meet twice each year in person. Additionally, it was suggested that we might consider reducing the meeting from 1 to 1 day. Stewart and Marsh (who recently organized in-person meetings) indicated that the meeting room arrangements could probably be changed (i.e., from 2 days to 1) up to a few weeks before the event. However, many in the group recognized the value in being able to converse outside of the formal meeting (at dinner, etc.), and in having the opportunity to reflect on discussions overnight. OBrien also noted that, if the meeting becomes insignificant enough to be only 1 day, then it might not be worthwhile to have the meeting at all. Walsh asked if education and promotion remain needs that this group should work to address? Marsh indicated that, while NCIP is a recognizable term, many users do not really understand what it is or how it works. Barr said, though, that perhaps the vendors themselves are responsible for educating their users rather than that being something that this group should be doing. Leckbee said that the best marketing and promotion tools are successful deployments. After some discussion, the group agreed that the current reduced emphasis on education and promotion is appropriate for the current state of the industry. Finally, the group acknowledged that its primary focus should be the continued evolution of the standard.

NISO SIP Working Group and its Relationship to NCIP

Walsh indicated that he believes that there are two questions that this group should answer for NISO with respect to the newly forming SIP working group: 1. What should be the role between the NCIP Standing Committee and the NISO SIP working group? 2. What should be the role between a possible NISO SIP and NCIP (from the perspective of the communities served and the specific areas of transactional responsibilities)? Some in the group felt strongly that it is too early to determine, for example, whether it is appropriate to remove the responsibility for self-service from NCIP. Bodfish suggested that part of the charge for the new working group should be to review the overlap between SIP and NCIP and make recommendations for how to mitigate areas of significant overlap and potential conflict. The group also recognized the need for the SIP working group to address the question of intellectual property rights associated with the use of the SIP protocol. This was something that was never properly done for NCIP; NCIP defines functions

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 7 of 10

that are claimed as protected intellectual property (and even has associated Application Profiles that define in detail how the protocol would be used to implement the functions), and the standard does not disclaim these as is required by the ANSI Patent Policy. Another idea that was discussed involved allowing the SIP meetings to be conducted in conjunction with NCIP meetings, either on a day before or after. Then, those who were interested in both standards (and possibly members of both groups) could easily attend both meetings, and there would be significant consistency between the work the two groups would be doing. Gray noted that there should be a distinction between 3Ms SIP 3.0 and any NISO published version of SIP so that there is no confusion for later implementers. The following NCIP SC members expressed interest in being part of the NISO SIP working group: - Ex Libris - Innovative Interfaces - OCLC - Polaris - TLC - EnvisionWare - CCLA

Implementers Registry
Dicus led a review of the current NCIP Implementer Registry. Sandstrum reported on various system updates he has performed on the hosting server. He said that some modules could not be updated because the system is running on an older version of Drupal, and the modules are not supported on the new version. He indicated that there is a need for a Drupal developer to maintain the code and the various modules. Walsh indicated that, in the past, NISO has offered to allow us to use their hosting services for the Implementer Registry, but he does not believe that their services support Drupal. Walsh will ask NISO what other technologies or platforms might already be available via their hosting service. Walsh will ask also whether NISO would agree to pay the $125/yr to continue hosting the current registry until it can be reworked. Gray is currently sponsoring the Implementer Registry, but he indicated that he will not be able to continue. Marsh volunteered to look into whether TLC might be able to provide hosting services, but she is uncertain whether TLC has any particular Drupal expertise.

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 8 of 10

Walsh asked whether it is necessary to continue to support the registry in Drupal. Campbell had recognized that the original implementation could be improved, and she was preparing to rewrite it when she retired. Further, her original choice to use Drupal was based on what she knew and had an interest in using. Therefore, it may be appropriate to review other technologies to determine if there is a better way to implement a revised version of the registry. Thursday, April 26

Informal Gathering at ALA Annual

Dicus indicated that we should again arrange an informal gathering at ALA this summer in Anaheim. He said that there are two hotels, a Marriott and a Hilton, near the convention center. He will check to see what sort of lobby bar facilities each has and report back to the group during an upcoming call.

Deconstructing NCIP Presentation

Collins will be presenting a session titled Deconstructing NCIP at the Northwest ILL conference in mid September.

Next Meeting
Sandstrum volunteered to check with CCLA (which will become the Florida Virtual Campus later this year) about hosting an NCIP meeting in the fall. He said they have a large meeting space, but there are not many restaurants and other facilities close by. OBrien also agreed to check with OCLC about hosting in the fall. The group tentatively selected the week of October 8 for a fall meeting. If NISO and the SIP working group are interested in a joint meeting, then the NCIP portion could be October 9-10, and the SIP portion could begin on the afternoon of the 10th.

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 9 of 10

Draft NISO Press Release Regarding SIP

The group reviewed a draft press release prepared by NISO announcing the formation of a SIP working group. Those present felt that the press release described a simple rubber stamping process that fails to take into consideration many of the items discussed during this meeting. Walsh agreed to respond to NISO with comments suggesting that the press release be rephrased.

NCIP Standing Committee Meeting Minutes April 25-26, 2012

Page 10 of 10