1. Introduction

389
-1

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
389
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1. Introduction

  1. 1. Technical Evaluation of Index Data RFP Written Responses and RFP Demonstration System This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of contract # 306-03-8165. William E. Moen, Ph.D. Kathleen R. Murray, Ph.D. Irene Lopatovska, M.L.S Texas Center for Digital Knowledge University of North Texas Denton, Texas March 21, 2003 William E. Moen, Ph.D. Texas Center for Digital Knowledge Principal Investigator University of North Texas
  2. 2. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA The following research assistants contributed to this report: Alexis Linoski, Fatih Oguz, Rich Reed, Barb Schultz-Jones, and Scott Simon. ZLOT Project Page 2 April 01, 2003
  3. 3. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Contents 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................................4 2. Evaluation Results for Index Data............................................................................................................4 2.1 Understanding the Project..................................................................................................................4 2.2 Demonstration System: Z-Interop Search Target...............................................................................9 2.2.1 Questionnaire.............................................................................................................................9 2.2.2 Test Searches & Scans............................................................................................................10 2.3 Demonstration System: TexShare Database Search Targets..........................................................12 2.3.1 Questionnaire...........................................................................................................................12 2.3.2 Test Searches...........................................................................................................................13 2.4 Demonstration System: Database Interaction..................................................................................14 ZLOT Project Page 3 April 01, 2003
  4. 4. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA 1. Introduction This document contains the results of evaluating Index Data’s response to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Library of Texas Resource Discovery Service Software (RFP number 306-03-8200). The following sections address the four parts of the RFP assessed by the ZLOT RFP evaluation team. 2. Evaluation Results for Index Data 2.1 Understanding the Project In all, 70 requirements were included in the RFP. The requirements were classified by three priority levels: must have, should have, and desirable. Table 1 identifies the number of requirements evaluated in each category. Priority Number Level Must Have 32 Should Have 34 Desirable 4 Total 70 Table 1. Requirements by Priority Level Index Data indicated they could meet all but one of the requirements, TRS-RI-A1.1. However, that requirement is explicated by the two requirements that follow it, TRS-RI-A1.2 and TRS-RI-A1.3, which the vendor indicated they could meet. Table 2 lists the number and percent of responses for each of the possible responses to the question: Does the vendor state they provide the functionality in their RDS? Vendor Response Number Percent Yes 69 99% No 0 0% No Response 1 1% Total 70 100% Table 2. Number of Requirements Vendor Meets The second question analyzed in this section is: How does the vendor provide the functionality? There were five possible choices: 1. Vendors’ current system 2. Third-party product 3. Custom development for LOT 4. Outsourcing 5. Other Index Data indicated that 64% (n = 45) of the requirements are satisfied by their proposed system. The vendor will develop 34% (n = 24) of the requirements for the LOT RDS. One functional requirement, to support queries in Spanish (SI C3), might require third party software. (See Table 3.) ZLOT Project Page 4 April 01, 2003
  5. 5. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Vendor Number Percent Response Current System 45 64% Third Party 1 1% Custom 24 34% Development Outsourcing 0 0% Other 0 0% Total 70 100% Table 3. How Vendor Meets Requirements Included below are the ZLOT RFP evaluation team’s comments on the vendor's response to each of the requirements. These are presented in priority groupings. The requirements are identified by the numbers in the RFP, with the exception that the four functional requirements are preceded by ‘F-‘. Requirements: Priority 1 – RDS Software Must Have Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 1 TRS-SRI-A1.1 Vendor indicates an understanding of the critical nature of a "homogeneous user interface". 2 TRS-SRI-A1.2 Vendor indicated a response of "N/A" for this requirement. However, their proposal includes formal usability testing for development and evaluation of their operational prototype. Therefore, we indicated a response of "Yes" for meeting this requirement. 3 TRS-SRI-A2 Vendor provides an Administration System that includes a forms-based web interface for administration of target resources, users/libraries, and portal content. A clear separation exists between the Administration System and the RDS. 4 TRS-SRI-A3.1 Vendor indicates they have the ability in current products to link from search results in the RDS via URL to the identical library catalog record in the native system. This feature enables a user to interact directly with the native system for acquisition purposes. 5 TRS-SRI-A3.2 Vendor states they can link directly from a specific resource in a search result list on the RDS to the same resource in the native system provided the URL is known and the "relevant URL syntax" is available. 6 TRS-SRI-A4 Vendor will include IP authentication as one part of an overall authentication mechanism. However, they raise a concern regarding the common use of IP proxies that obscure the originating IP addresses and suggest that authentication based on IP is "notoriously ineffective way of enforcing security for web system." Their concern is worth considering in the design of LOT authentication. 7 TRS-SRI-A5 Vendor did not provide any details of their development plans. 8 TRS-SRI-A6 Vendor indicates that a cookie-based access scheme could be a solution. This seems reasonable. Might ask for more details, e.g., Would a local PC store a user's local library IP, username, and password in cookie for a single session only? Are there policies or practices at the TSLAC, local library, or database provider levels that might conflict with the use of cookies? ZLOT Project Page 5 April 01, 2003
  6. 6. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 9 TRS-SRI-A7 Their development seems feasible. Vendor has a logging mechanism that can be enhanced. Regarding the inclusion of usage statistics when a user leaves the RDS and enters the content provider's native interface, the vendor indicates that cooperation from content providers would need to be negotiated. [One facet of this requirement that we think needs clarifying is whether library databases and online catalogs are considered content providers or does this requirement only pertain to licensed database providers.] 10 TRS-SRI-A8.1 Vendor would develop from scratch due to the uniqueness of this RDS. 11 TRS-SRI-A8.2 Vendor would develop from scratch due to the uniqueness of this RDS. 12 TRS-SRI-A9 No details provided by vendor for this requirement. 13 TRS-SI-A1.1 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 14 TRS-SI-A1.2 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 15 TRS-SI-A1.3 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 16 TRS-SI-A2.1 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 17 TRS-SI-A2.2 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 18 TRS-SI-A2.3 No details provided in vendor's written response. The ability of the vendor's demonstration system, submitted as one part of their RFP response, to meet this requirement is being tested in another part of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 19 TRS-SI-A3.1 Vendor indicates that they are "particularly skilled and experienced" in the area of concurrent searching. Vendor has engaged in research regarding effective and efficient concurrent searching on a large scale. Their expertise in this regard is reflected in their RFP response Section 2.1 "Challenges and Issues" and in an article available at: http://indexdata.com/paraz/parallel_search.html 20 TRS-SI-A3.2 See comments for TRS-SI-A3.1. Vendor indicates concurrent searching is one area in which they have particular expertise. 21 TRS-SI-A4.1 Vendor provided no details. This requirement is being evaluated for the demonstration system in another aspect of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 22 TRS-SI-A4.2 Vendor describes a flexible and customizable system environment to develop a variety of groupings for databases. See RFP response Section 2.2.2 - Search Interface - Target Resource Selection. Also see RFP response Section 2.2.3 - Administration system - Target Administration. 23 TRS-SI-A5 No details provided. 24 TRS-SI-A6.1 Vendor indicates that this "will be a pleasure to implement." 25 TRS-SI-A6.2 As with TRS-SI-6.1, vendor indicates that this "will be a pleasure to implement." 26 TRS-RI-A1.1 Vendor did not respond. ZLOT Project Page 6 April 01, 2003
  7. 7. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 27 TRS-RI-A1.2 Vendor accurately notes that the descriptive data elements must be available from the target resource in order to be displayed by the retrieval interface. 28 TRS-RI-A1.3 Vendor accurately notes that the descriptive data elements must be available from the target resource in order to be displayed in the retrieval interface. 29 TRS-RI-A2 Vendor accurately notes that the data elements must be available from the target resource in order to be displayed in the retrieval interface. They suggest the use of icons to indicate resource availability to users, which seems like a good approach. 30 TRS-RI-A3 Vendor provided no details. 31 TRS-RI-A4 Vendor proposes two possible ways to implement this functionality: automatically include a user's home library in any broadcast search or ask the user if they would like to check their home library for items discovered in other libraries. In the latter case the system would issue a follow-on search using a unique resource identifier, e.g., ISBN. These are reasonable approaches. 32 TRS-RI-A5 Vendor provided no details. Requirements: Priority 2 – RDS Software Should Have Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 33 F-SRI-B1 Vendor provided no details. 34 TRS-SRI-B2 Vendor appreciates the use of the RDS to provide a "local library" look and feel. This requirement is being evaluated in another aspect of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 35 F-SRI-B3 Vendor provided no details. 36 TRS-SRI-B4 Vendor provided no details. 37 TRS-SRI-B5 Section 2.2.2 Administration system - Target administration - lists the data fields that can be used to describe any target resource and how this information can be exposed to the "outside world" using XML-formatted records. 38 TRS-SRI-B6 Vendor indicates meeting this requirement is possible as long as the database descriptive information is available. 39 TRS-SRI-B7 Vendor indicates they have extensive experience with language issues in working on European Union funded projects. They are a Danish company and clearly have dealt with language issues in their work. Vendor's demonstration system submitted in response to the RFP does provide a Spanish language interface for both search and retrieval. Testing this interface with a search in Spanish produced results in both English and Spanish as was appropriate from the search target. 40 TRS-SI-B1.1 This requirement is being evaluated in another aspect of the ZLOT technical evaluation. 41 TRS-SI-B1.2 Vendor indicates that they can meet this requirement dependent only upon the data field being populated in the MARC records of the target catalog. The vendor's demonstration system submitted in response to the RFP does display information from the MARC record, which is also fully available for viewing. 42 TRS-SI-B1.3 Vendor provided no details. 43 TRS-SI-B1.4 The ZLOT team in another aspect of the technical evaluation is evaluating this requirement. 44 TRS-SI-B1.5 Vendor indicates they can meet this requirement. ZLOT Project Page 7 April 01, 2003
  8. 8. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 45 TRS-SI-B2.1 Vendor correctly cautions that this requirement may be "before its time" in terms of the readiness of database providers and library catalogs' ability to consistently make the requisite information available. With regard to consistency, there are no "significant technical impediments." It would be helpful to review vendor's RFP response Section 2.1 - Challenges and Issues and consider what policies and procedures might be needed in order for the RDS software to meet this requirement. 46 TRS-SI-B2.2 This requirement is being evaluated in another aspect of the ZLOT technical evaluation. See comments for TRS-SI_B2.1. 47 TRS-SI-B3.1 Vendor correctly cautions that care should be taken in the final design of the RDS software to limit by guidance in the interface the number of targets searched. 48 TRS-SI-B3.2 Vendor correctly cautions that care should be taken in the final design of the RDS software to limit by guidance in the interface the number of targets searched. 49 TRS-SI-B4.1 Vendor states that this requirement assumes that search engines included as content providers in the RDS software will make their content available for the RDS software to present in its own retrieval interface. 50 TRS-SI-B4.2 Vendor provides an Administrative system for creating groupings of target resources. See RFP response section 2.2.2 Search Interface - Target resource selection. 51 TRS-SI-B5.1 Vendor's RDS software includes an Administrative system to establish groupings of target resource collections. 52 TRS-SI-B5.2 Vendor's RDS software includes an Administrative system to establish groupings of target resource collections. See RFP response section 2.2.2 Search interface - Target resource selection. 53 TRS-SI-B6 Vendor provided no details. Vendor demonstration system submitted for their RFP response has library type categories included in the interface. 54 TRS-SI-B7 Vendor provided no details. 55 TRS-SI-B8 Vendor provided no details. 56 TRS-SI-B9.1 Vendor provided no details 57 TRS-SI-B9.2 Vendor provided no details. 58 TRS-SI-B10 Standard bibliographic and metadata sets are configured on the RDS server although the RFP response did not specify which ones. The vendor's Administrative system does not provide GUI for adding or modifying additional metadata profiles. 59 TRS-SI-B11 Vendor's RFP demonstration system provides a scan service that performs fine. 60 TRS-RI-B1 Vendor can meet this requirement if the resource target provides the data elements. Vendor's Statement of Work indicates they will do usability testing in their design phase. Additionally, vendor has conducted research with grouping results by title/ISBN/ISSN. Vendor correctly cautions that scalability is an issue that must be addressed in the RDS design. 61 TRS-RI-B2 Vendor correctly notes that fulfilling this requirement is dependent upon the data elements being available in the target resource. Additionally, vendor cautions that consistency in the data elements is important across the target resources and that the absence of such consistency can make this feature marginally useful. This is a reasonable caution and should be considered in the RDS design. 62 TRS-RI-B3 Vendor provided no details. 63 TRS-RI-B4.1 Vendor provided no details. 64 TRS-RI-B4.2 Vendor provided no details. 65 TRS-RI-B4.3 Vendor indicates that they can interface via SOAP to Amazon and can identify online bookstores as a Z39.50 searchable resource. ZLOT Project Page 8 April 01, 2003
  9. 9. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Requirement ZLOT Review Comments 66 TRS-RI-B5 Vendor indicates they can do follow-on searches by 'subject' at a minimum. Requirements: Priority 3 – Desirable Features of the RDS Software Requirement ZLOT Review Comments Vendor suggests that persistent cookies on users computers could be a 67 TRS-SRI-C1 mechanism for meeting this requirement. Vendor provided no comments. See 2.2.3 Administrative system for 68 F-SI-C2 further information. We interpret the vendor's use of an "externally available translation 69 F-SI-C3 service or dictionary" as a third party product. See RFP Section 2.6.4 - Additional Profiling Efforts. Vendor suggests that server-side, i.e., resource collection servers, indexing or sorting policies would greatly enhance the RDS software's ability to sort retrieved records without impeding performance or inducing large response times. This is a 70 TRS-RI-C1 management and policy issue that the LOT should address. System Support Index Data did state their maintenance and support strategy. The vendor requests that one or two contact persons be dedicated as primary vendor support contacts. The TSLAC will have to consider if the following hours and response times are acceptable. If not, negotiations with the vendor to modify these proposed arrangements are recommended. • Routine support is provided via email or telephone between 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. CST. Emergency support is available between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • Performance-affecting problems will be addressed within one working day while less critical problems will be addressed within four working days. 2.2 Demonstration System: Z-Interop Search Target The evaluation of the demonstration system's interaction with the Z-Interop search target consisted of a 13-item questionnaire (Appendix C in Technical Evaluation Methodology document), 39 test searches, and 3 Scans (Appendix D in Technical Evaluation Methodology document). 2.2.1 Questionnaire The items on the questionnaire are associated with the following TRS: • TRS-SI-A1.1 • TRS-RI-A1.2 • TRS-RI-A2 The demonstration system’s search and retrieval interface provided functionality for five (39%) items identified in the technical requirement specifications. (See Table 4.) ZLOT Project Page 9 April 01, 2003
  10. 10. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Questionnaire Response Number Percent Yes 5 39% No 8 61% Total 13 100% Table 4. Number of Questionnaire Items The following list is limited to items that did not meet the technical requirements addressed in the questionnaire (Appendix C in Technical Evaluation Methodology document): Format of resource (TRS-RI-A1.2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Language of resource (TRS-RI-A1.2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Language type appeared the USMARC record view. Type of publication (TRS-RI-A1.2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Standard Identifier (TRS-RI-A1.2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Language type appeared in the USMARC record view. Determine if a resource described by a record is available in digital form (TRS-RI-A1.2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Interlibrary loan (TRS-RI-A2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Document delivery (TRS-RI-A2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Order an online request (TRS-RI-A2): The data type was not included in the retrieved results in either the brief or the full record view. Quality Assessment The demonstration system received a quality level Good (3 of 5). Comments regarding the quality assessment: • The initial search page lacked some basic information, such as a description of what the site is about, some example search terms, and access to help. • Active links were not underlined throughout the site. • Navigation was also a problem. For example, there is no clear indication of how to return to a previous page. • Search result information presented in both the brief and full record views is inconsistent with respect to format and content. 2.2.2 Test Searches & Scans The second part of the evaluation of the demonstration system's interaction with the Z-Interop search target consisted of test searches issued against the Z-Interop search target (Appendix D in Technical Evaluation Methodology document). The following is a description of the results. ZLOT Project Page 10 April 01, 2003
  11. 11. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Thirty-five searches (90%) conformed to the profile specification. Details about the non-conforming searches are provided below. (See Table 5.) Z-Interop Conformance Number Percent Yes 90% 35 No 10% 4 3 100% Total 9 Table 5. Conformance for Searches Two searches did not function properly in the demonstration system: • Search 34: Subject – First Words in Field (TRS-SI-B1.1) • Search 37: Subject – First Characters in Field (TRS-SI-B1.1) It is not clear to the evaluators why these searches are not working. The Z-Interop log files that record queries submitted to the server did not include any indication that these queries were received by the server. Also, no records were identified or received by the demonstration system, even though records that match the search terms are in the Z-Interop search target. The other two searches that were not conformant are discussed below. The attribute combinations for each query as defined in the Bath Profile or the U.S. National Profile are listed in the tables for Searches 32 and 35. The actual attribute combination sent by the demonstration system is listed in the fourth column. Search 32: Author – First Words in Field (TRS-SI-B1.1): The demonstration system did not provide a specific option for the Author-First Words in Field search. Consequently, the ZLOT RFP evaluation team executed the search using the demonstration system’s Precision option. This search request resulted in the demonstration system passing the “name (normalized)” structure attribute to the Z-Interop search target. This does not conform to the current Bath profile. Attribute Type Values Expected Attribute Names Values Passed Attribute Names Use (1) 1003 author 1003 author Relation (2) 3 equal 3 equal Position (3) 1 first in field 1 first in field Structure (4) 1 phrase 101 name (normalized) Truncation (5) 100 do not truncate 100 do not truncate Completeness (6) 1 incomplete subfield 1 incomplete subfield Search 35: Author – First Characters in Field (TRS-SI-B1.1): The demonstration system did not provide a specific option for the Author-First Words in Field search. Consequently, the ZLOT RFP evaluation team executed the search using the demonstration system’s Precision option. This search request resulted in the demonstration system passing the “name (normalized)” structure attribute to the Z-Interop search target. This does not conform to the current Bath profile. ZLOT Project Page 11 April 01, 2003
  12. 12. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Attribute Type Values Expected Attribute Names Values Passed Attribute Names Use (1) 1003 author 1003 author Relation (2) 3 equal 3 equal Position (3) 1 first in field 1 first in field Structure (4) 1 phrase 101 name (normalized) Truncation (5) 100 do not truncate 100 do not truncate Completeness (6) 1 incomplete subfield 1 incomplete subfield There is also a requirement for issuing Scan requests (TRS-SI-B11). Three Scan requests were issued as part of the evaluation of the demonstration system, with success for each Scan. (See Table 6.) Scan Successful Number Percent 100% Yes 3 0% No 0 Total 3 100% Table 6. Number of Scan Requests 2.3 Demonstration System: TexShare Database Search Targets This section describes the results that ZLOT RFP evaluation team members received when assessing the demonstration system's Z39.50 client's conformance to Profile level 0 and level 1 queries to two TexShare database targets: 1. EBSCO Academic Search Premier 2. Gale Health Reference Center Academic. The ability to concurrently perform Profile Level 0 searches of both TexShare databases and of multiple Library of Texas (LOT) resource collection types was also required in this part of the technical evaluation. The Bath compliant Z-Interop search target and the two TexShare database targets constitute the multiple resource collection types. The TexShare Database evaluation consisted of a 6-item questionnaire (Appendix E in Technical Evaluation Methodology document ) and 39 test searches (Appendix F in Technical Evaluation Methodology document). Item 6 is addressed in the Quality Assessment section. 2.3.1 Questionnaire Questions 1, 2, and 3 are associated with the following TRS and include 18 items that were assessed (see Table 7): • TRS-SI-A1.1 • TRS-RI-A1.3 Questionnaire Response Number Percent Yes 18 100% No 0 0% Total 18 100% Table 7. Number of Questionnaire Items ZLOT Project Page 12 April 01, 2003
  13. 13. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA Question 4 provides comments regarding the search process: The use of the question mark for the truncation indicator is not the expected standard of an asterisk as indicator, and this suggests that the interface may require an explanatory introduction rather than being intuitively used. Question 5 provides comments regarding the search results: It is easy to go back and forth between retrieved results and a new search page. Quality Assessment The demonstration system received a quality level of Very Good (4 of 5). Comments regarding the quality assessment: • Format or resource is selected and displayed the way it is identified in the native target resource. • The language of the resource is consistent with what is presented in the native target resource. • The standard identifier is not clearly labeled but it is included in the full USMARC record. 2.3.2 Test Searches In all, 39 search requirements were included in the assessment of the demonstration system (Appendix F in Technical Evaluation Methodology document). Details about the missing functionality are provided below. (See Table 8.) System Response Number Percent Yes 31 78% No 8 22% Total 39 100% Table 8. Number of Search Requirements The following list is limited to search results that did not meet the technical requirements. Exact match – author (TRS-SI-B1.4): The vendor’s system requires the use of author precision as a search type in order to achieve an exact match. Author – first words in field (TRS-SI-B1.4): This search option is not available in the vendor’s interface. Subject – first words in field (TRS-SI-B1.4): The search results are inconsistent with the records retrieved from the native interface and the Z-Interop Z-client for both TexShare databases. Author – first character in field (TRS-SI-B1.4): Author-first-character-in-field is not available as an option in the vendor’s system. Title – first character in field (TRS-SI-B1.4): The search results are inconsistent with the records retrieved from the native interface and the Z-Interop Z-client for the EBSCO database. Subject – first character in field (TRS-SI-B1.4): The search results are inconsistent with the records retrieved from the native interface and the Z-Interop Z-client for the EBSCO database. ZLOT Project Page 13 April 01, 2003
  14. 14. RFP: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR INDEX DATA ISBN (TRS-SI-B1.4): The vendor does not provide a search option specifically for ISBN but does have an area for Standard Identifier where ISBN can be entered. No search results are retrieved by the native interface, Z-Interop Z-client or the vendor when searching either TexShare database for this search option. ISSN (TRS-SI-B1.4): The vendor does not provide a search option specifically for ISSN but does have an area for Standard Identifier where ISSN can be entered. No search results are retrieved by the native interface, Z-Interop Z-client or the vendor when searching the Gale TexShare database with this search option. 2.4 Demonstration System: Database Interaction This section presents the results of assessing the vendor demonstration systems use of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) authentication data to control access to licensed databases (TRS-SRI-A4) and the TSLAC library profile data to select local library information for use in the application (TRS-SRI-B2). The vendor's system provided a place to log into the application using one of the user ids and user passwords associated with a particular library. For the six items of local library information that were to be presented in the user interface, 3 of the 6 were present after login. (See Table 9.) Interface Customization For Local Library Number Percent Yes 3 50% No 3 50% Total 6 100% Table 9. Number of Local Library Information Items The library’s e-mail address, telephone number, and street address were not displayed, however, a link was provided to the main web page of the library, where this information was available. Quality Assessment The demonstration system received a quality level of Good (3 of 5). Comments regarding the quality assessment: Vendor stated that this is a functional demonstration, not an operational demonstration with bells and whistles for usability, a plain site. We were able to easily find what we were evaluating. ZLOT Project Page 14 April 01, 2003

×