Technology Subcommittee Minutes

PRESENT: Nelda Sims, Elaine Moore, Sherri Scrogham, Nancy Lewis, Angela Davig, Tari Keller, Kathy Hamparian, Roberta Kirby, Paul Fuller, Elsie Pritchard, Weiling Liu, Perry Bratcher, Marian Winner (for Coy Harmon), Sharon Miller, Rick Chlopan, David King, Dennis Taulbee, Miko Pattie, Kirk Marcus, Mark Wilson, Jane Burke

1. Support Models - Jane:

There are 2 support models for Endeavor:

1.1. Stand-alone Endeavor Systems: Full support from Endeavor on all implementation issues

1.2. Consortial Endeavor Systems: Partial support on data migration from Endeavor; Other support from the host sites

2. Pros and Cons of Consortia - Jane:

Jane stated that both one-time and on-going costs need to be taken into consideration. On software, there are 3 ways to configure the costs based on U0fL contract:

2.1. Stand-alone Endeavor Systems

-- with single servers: Full one-time and on-going costs; full support from Endeavor

-- with shared servers: One-time hardware cost neutral but system maintenance cost shared; full cost on software; full support from Endeavor; works best when libraries are similar in size

2.2. Additional Institutions: All costs shared; support same as 1.2.

When asked if Endeavor will be involved if libraries choose to move from one model to another, Jane answered yes. ( At the preceding meeting, Jane stated that libraries that choose to move from consortial arrangement to stand-alone will need to pay the difference in base software cost. For libraries that move from stand-alone to consortia, no refund will be made.) Clarion University in Pennsylvania made the latter change. Jane stated that Endeavor had not yet moved any library from a consortial arrangement to a stand-alone and that the typical arrangement for the additional library configuration was a larger library hosting a very small library such as a seminary.

3. Broadcast Searching versus Universal Index:

Broadcast searching is available today. It creates a connection, searches across systems, including non-Z39.50 systems, dedups and consolidates the search results. Endeavor is working with Georgia currently on Universal Index and projects that this will be available towards the end of '99. This feature intends to save network traffic and makes it more efficient to search multiple catalogs. Universal index has to reside on a central server.

4. Other State Projects:

Jane stated that other statewide Endeavor projects, such as Georgia and Pennsylvania, are stand-alone software sharing common servers. This configuration allows savings on ongoing cost in system maintenance and still provides full service via an assigned Endeavor project manager to individual libraries . Additional benefit for this model is more direct connectivity.

5. Best Model for Kentucky:

When asked what would be the best model for Kentucky, Jane stated that perhaps 4 servers located at UK, UofL, east, and west would be a good configuration. She emphasized that this suggestion is being made without her having any knowledge of the type of statewide network we have or will have in place or the kind of traffic we will have on CVL.

I Need Help | Toll free help: 1-877-740-4357 | Search the KYVL Website | Information Skills Tutorial | Comments/Suggestions

© Kentucky Virtual Library, 1024 Capital Center Dr. Suite 210, Frankfort, KY 40601
Phone: 502-573-1555, Fax: 502-573-1031