Lee Teverow reviewed the original charges of the working group and posed two hypothetical questions to facilitate discussion:

1. Is the working group still needed?
2. What directions might it take in the future?

Donna DiMichele (OLIS) confirmed that it is still needed and added there are a number issues that could be examined in the future.

The following four items are still required of the working group as stated in its original charge:

1. To encourage inter-library loan among all LORI libraries
2. Facilitate the improvement of interlibrary loan services among all LORI libraries.
3. To update the ILL Code and create a manual which will be used as a basis for future training
4. To identify training needs and collate deficiencies in ILL procedures and organize meetings and/or workshops on ILL procedures

Donna indicated that the fifth item “To act in an advisory capacity to the LORI Committee on ILL policies and procedures” needs to be updated to “act in an advisory capacity to OLIS”.

Donna indicated that there are a number of other issues the working group could deal with in the future.

• Ongoing training using different media such as streaming video
• Delivery System - She noted that the contract is running out with the courier and OLIS will be issuing a new RFP.

Donna and Sheila Carlson (OLIS) suggested that the working group could review the RFP. Sheila also suggested that the working group could hold roundtables to share expertise on specific issues.

Webfeats and LORI ILL E-mail System Issues

Chaichin Chen (OLIS) introduced WebFeats as a possible interim solution to the webmail system currently used by LORI to managed requests between LORI libraries. Chaichin described webfeats as a federated search product which would allow LORI libraries to search all the RI library catalogs at once. A librarian could use this to search for the library that holds an item a patron would like and click into the appropriate catalog and submit a request using some kind of institutional patron record or some other method to be decided. This would require each consortium or institution with a catalog to create some kind of institutional patron record to allow librarians to submit the request. This would be seen as an interim solution until the Library Futures One Catalog Plan might be implemented.