NOVANET ACQUISITIONS/SERIALS FUNCTIONAL CONTACTS MEETING #6

University of King’s College Conference Room, Tues., 18 Jan. 2005 1.30 p.m.

Present: Linda Aiken (Dal Law), Dylan Boudreau (Novanet), Karen Chandler (Dal Killam), 
Judith Coughlan-Lambly (Dal Kellogg), Gail Fraser (Dal Kellogg), Peter Glenister (MSVU), 
Paulette Lambert (King’s), Lloyd Melanson (AST), Verna Mingo (NSAC), Bev Neable 
(NSCC), Heather Saunders (SMU), Bill Slauenwhite (Novanet), Cathy Toomey (UCCB via 
phone), Florence Wardrope (St.F.X.), Terri Winchcombe (Dal Sexton).
Regrets: Jane Archibald (Dal Killam), Kit Clarke (NSCAD), Linda MacLeod (Dal Killam)

1.	Agenda

The agenda was agreed to include review of the previous minutes and discussion of two 
documents relating to Advance to Aleph migration: Dal Libraries concerns and Advance 
Acquisitions code lists.

2.	Minutes of previous meeting (27 April, 2004)

The minutes of the 27 April, 2004 meeting were approved as distributed.

3.	Business arising from the previous minutes

3.1	Linking of pieces to parts issue outstanding from conversion

While this was agreed to be of no immediate concern for migration, the group 
agreed that, once Novanet data is available on Aleph, a test will be required to 
ensure that piece records with checked-in linked parts migrate properly. The Dal 
Killam document has been posted to the Novanet Acquisitions webpage:
http://novanet.ns.ca/acq/PartstoPieces.doc

3.2	“5000” records

The duplicate holdings display in GeoWeb has been cleaned up as much as it can 
be or needs to be prior to migration to Aleph.

3.3	EDI

Vendors who deal with Novanet have been identified as prospective EDI 
correspondents. The exception to date is Login Bros.

4.	New business

4.1	The Dal Libraries document of migration concerns was considered first. As the 
code lists was the first point raised, discussion moved to the Advance Acquisitions 
lists of codes.

4.1.1	Acquisitions reports
D. Boudreau indicated that ExLibris could provide 75% of Advance 
equivalent reports; the remainder would have to be produced by Novanet 
staff with Novanet members.

4.1.2	Advance Code Table menu (CODM)
D. Boudreau indicated that all Advance configuration codes will migrate.
With respect to Location codes, the group identified a problem with 
variations in codes for Dal Sexton, TUNS and DALTEC both having been 
used in the past.
With respect to Currency codes, the group identified the need for variable 
exchange rates because of differing payment procedures and internal 
currency management practices.
With respect to Selector codes, the group identified a need to know if all 
codes would migrate and, if not all, which ones would.
With respect to the PO Print Format codes, the group identified a need to 
know the variation and customization available for printed order forms.
With respect to Yearend codes, the group identified a need to know whether 
or not credits or debits to a past fiscal year would be possible and whether or 
not authorization can be retroactively applied.
With respect to Claim codes, Cancel codes and Claim Message codes, the 
group identified a need to know what text variants might be available and 
how they might be customized.

4.1.3	Advance Control Table menu (CTLM)
D. Boudreau indicated that there would be no migration of the Calendar 
Processor codes (ACP) or User defaults (CUDEF).
With respect to Order Condition codes, the group identified a need to know 
the Aleph equivalents.
With respect to PO Number Format, the group identified a need to know the 
generic PO number structure, the possible length of numbers, if an agency 
code can be embedded and how this might be done, and if both years of a 
split fiscal year can be incorporated into a PO number and how this might be 
done.
With respect to Claim Text codes, the group identified a need to know what 
text variants might be available and how they might be customized.

4.2.1	Serials reports and code lists
D. Boudreau indicated that as for Acquisitions there would be no migration 
of the Calendar Processor codes (ACP) or User defaults (CUDEF).
With respect to Checkin codes, the group identified a need to know whether 
or not records with items due or outstanding claims would be considered as 
“open” or “active” for purposes of migration and the impact such status 
would have for Acquisitions on otherwise completed or cancelled orders.
With respect to Publication Pattern Type codes, the group identified a need 
to know which of multiple publication patterns attached to a record will 
migrate and whether or not a single agency’s multiple patterns will migrate.
With respect to Bindery reports, the group identified a need to know which 
vendors have an Aleph interface and how the bindery software interface 
operates.
With respect to Renewal Review dates, the group identified a need to know 
whether or not discrete renewal dates for agencies would be necessary and, 
if not, how orders to be renewed are selected and renewed.

4.3	Discussion then returned to data migration points in the Dal Libraries document.
	
4.3.1	Orders
The group identified a need to know the disposition of FY2005/6 orders that 
have been completed before migration.
The group identified a need to know the disposition of the data in the Notes 
Detail lines of orders that migrate.

4.3.2	Funds
The group identified a need to know whether or not account codes used in 
Advance could be migrated.

4.3.3	Vendors
The group identified a need to know whether or not Advance vendor codes 
need to migrate in the same form and whether or not all vendor codes would 
migrate regardless of status (e.g. active, inactive, blacklisted).

4.3.4	Claims
The group identified a need to know whether or not orders with outstanding 
reports, claims or partial payments would migrate intact.

4.3.5	Invoices
The group identified a need to know whether or not incomplete (i.e. not yet 
authorized for payment) invoices will migrate with all attached orders.
The group identified a need to know the disposition of the data in the Note 
and Discount Note lines of invoices that migrate.

4.3.6	Selectors
The group identified a need to know how the structure of selector 
information discussed above under 4.1.3 should migrate.

4.3.7	Requests
The group identified a need to know how orders that have not been “cut” 
(Advance “requests”) will migrate.

4.3.8	Currency
As discussed above under 4.1.3, the group identified a need to know 
whether or not one currency is considered or can be made the standard and 
whether or not exchange rates can vary from agency to agency and from 
day to day or from invoice to invoice.

4.3.9	Serials
The group identified a need to know the disposition of the data in the Notes 
line of the Advance Serial Copy Display of serials records with a checkin 
history that migrate.

4.4	Historical data
The group identified the need to know the possible formats for extraction of all 
Advance acquisitions data that cannot migrate and whether or not this data could be 
segregated by agency.

5.	Next meeting
In order to expedite the selection of a date for its next meeting, the group agreed to 
inform P. Glenister by return e-mail the dates in February on which they have previous 
commitments.

 6.	Adjournment