ACQNET v2n064 (June 14, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n064 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 64, June 14, 1992 ===================================== (1) FROM: Jane Maddox SUBJECT: EDILIBE Project, Electronic Data Interchange, standards (117 lines) (2) FROM: William Jarvis SUBJECT: Management reporting on line (17 lines) (3) FROM: David Marshall SUBJECT: Acquisitions librarians working for vendors, ethics (30 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Jun 92 14:27:50 EDT From: Jane Maddox (Harrassowitz) <70571.1214@CompuServe.COM> Subject: EDILIBE, Electronic Data Interchange, standards Action Plan for the Libraries in the European Community: LIBACT 2/EDILIBE Participants from England, Holland, Italy and Germany carried out work on the EDILIBE project (Phase I) from March to December 1991. This project was based on the German project "Elektronischer Datenaustausch zwischen Bibliotheken und Buchhandel auf der Basis von O(pen) S(ystems) I(nterconnetion), which was funded by the Bundesministerium fur Forschung und Technologie, and was managed by the Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main. The EDILIBE-project was financed by the Commission of the EC and the final report has now been submitted. The following organizations were involved in the project: -John Rylands University Library, Manchester, -Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, -Starkmann Library Services, Ltd., London, -B.H. Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, -Casalini Libri s.p.a., Fiesole, -Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. The main objective of the entire project is to prepare, to test and to promote the application of electronic communication between the book trade and libraries on the basis of the international standards EDIFACT and X400. The use of telecommunication standards, which conform to OSI (Open Systems Interconnection), enables the interconnection of heterogenous EDP-systems, whereby data from various systems can be understood and processed without double keying. The first phase of the project served the purpose of analysis and theoretical work on the basic principles. The following tasks have been carried out: 1. EDIFACT: - Checking and extending the message types Offer, Order, Order Response, Invoice, which were defined as branch-specific subsets for the corresponding EDIFACT-formats, - Comparing the format drafts with the currently available Anglo- American standard formats for business transactions between the book trade and libraries: BISAC, ANSI X.12, TRADACOMS, - Reviewing whether EDIFACT is used in related branches and could be transferred to communication between libraries and their suppliers. 2. X.400: - Analysing the application of the X.400 standard within national and private communication networks in each country, - Checking whether a comparative functionality of the Telebox 400 Service of the Deutsche Bundespost Telekom will be available in the countries of the participants, - transposing the results for implementation by the project participants. 3. System configurations: - Analyzing the participants' in-house systems with regards to the functionalities already available, and confirming deficits. - Developing concepts for solutions with regards to technical realization and cost-efficiency. All analyses were carried out with success. The results can be summarized as follows: It was shown that there were no existing uses of EDIFACT in branches of similar structure which could be transferred. The comparison of EDIFACT with related national standard formats showed that EDIFACT is more extensive and more flexible, but that there are common features with TRADACOMS, so that a transfer from TRADACOMS to EDIFACT is feasible in England. The format draft, which was introduced into the project, did not need to be altered very much for the participants and it was updated according to the EDIFACT directory 91.1. Tests were undertaken to check the level of telecommunication and availability of X.400 software products in the participating countries. Concrete software and hardware configurations were designed for all project partners in order to create the prerequisites for standardized communication. The results were taken up in the proposal for the second phase of the project. The continuation of EDILIBE (phase II) within the Action Plan for Libraries in the European Community was fundamentally approved by the Commission at the end of March 1992. The following objectives are to be achieved: 1. Realization of those concepts developed in Phase I for each participant's system configuration, implementation of EDIFACT- converters and X.400 software in all in-house systems and creation of import/export interfaces. 2. Execution and documentation of inter-operability tests. 3. Commencement and continuation of the standardization process for the developed EDIFACT-subsets "Quotes, Orders, Order Responses, Invoices", proposal for the necessary branch-specific, structural alterations and the extension of the code lists, with the possible inclusion of additional demands on the part of the publishers. The circle of participants is going to be extended to include the national libraries of Madrid and Florence. The project will probably commence in September 1992. More information is available from: Margot Wiesner, Stadt- und Universitatsbibliothek, Bockenheimer Landstrabe 134-138, 6000 Frankfurt am Main 1 Tel: (069) 212-39238 Fax: (069) 212-39404 (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 15:31:55 EDT From: William Jarvis (Washington State Univ. Subject: My Interest in Researching Online Management Reports I have a research interest in the vast topic of management reporting online, and would be very interested in any documentation, comments, procedures, experiences, problems, or triumphs ACQNET users would like to send me. All ILS, microcomputer-based, mainframe, library, or vendor experiences in acquisi- tions, collection development, serials control, circulation, or any combination thereof are of interest. If you think it might be considered "management reporting"--send it. Thanks from the Palouse Hill Country. William E. Jarvis, Head, Acquisitions/Serials, Libraries, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-5610, 509-335-2520, Fax: 509-335-0934 (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1992 16:02 EDT From: David Marshall (Georgetown University) Subject: The Revolving Door in Acquisitions, an Ethical Dilemma? I recently retrieved the "Ethics in Acquisitions" postings. I found the previous discussion on vendor slips, etc., to be very interesting and may want to add my two cents worth at a later time if topics gathered into postings are not considered dead topics. (Christian - What is the editorial policy on that?) [Topics in background files are not dead. They're together for conve- nience only. C.] What I was seeking was a discussion on another ethical question that I have been pondering of late. That is, what are the ethics involved in acquisitions librarians, or librarians in general, going to work directly for material or system vendors? It seems to me that we are challenged by some of the same issues that brought about the "1978 Ethics in Government Act." I do not have all the specifics of this act at hand, but as I remember, its main purpose was to eliminate conflict of interest issues by mandating a year between government service and accepting immediate positions with contractors with whom they have had direct contact. Interestingly, this topic came up in a conversation I had with a vendor's representative (previous position in publishing). In my years in acquisitions work, I have know many vendors' representatives who had been librarians. They have all been fine upstanding people - no doubt, pillars of their communities. But should we still not be concerned about the appearance of possible improprieties? While none of us handle budgets as large as we would like for our institutions, we still handle large sums. Or, are these relative small amounts, in comparison to government contracts, what diffuses the impact of possible conflict here? Anybody else concerned about this? ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 64 ****** END OF FILE *******