CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Kevin Gamiel/MCNC - CNIDR Minutes of the Networked Information Retrieval Working Group (NIR) Agenda o Approval of the agenda o Status report on CNIDR o Status report on RARE related activities o NIR status report - Final update and comments before publication as an RFC - Maintenance o NIR evaluation o Review of the charter o Any other business Status Report on CNIDR Jim Fullton gave the current status of CNIDR. CNIDR is continuing freeWAIS server development, the current version being 0.202. A generic search engine application programmer's interface is being developed to allow the integration of any search engine under the WAIS protocol stack. FreeWAIS 1.0, a WAIS server based on Z39.50 1992, is being developed as well. Other projects include a CUSeeMe client for MS Windows and the Global Schoolhouse project. Status Report on RARE Related Activities Jill Foster gave an overview of RARE related activities. The NIR Working Group is a joint IETF/RARE working group. The RARE members of the working group met in Warsaw, Poland in October. Anders Gillner (SUNET) reported there on the Eurogopher activities and held a BOF session on recommendations for NEPAs (National (gopher) Entry Point Administrators). The recommendation was that NEPAs coordinate registration of gopher and other information services within their own countries. Discussion included Veronica harvesting at a national level, recommendations for structure of the top level menu, and on sharing management tools. Other Subgroups of the RARE ISUS (Information Services and User Support ) Working Group include MMIS (Multi-Media Information Services) and UNITE (User Network Interface to Everything!). The latter group has undertaken a review of how well certain collections of software for accessing the network work together on various platforms, with a view to identifying what is lacking. 1 NIR Status Report The working group split into smaller groups to discuss each section of the NIR status report as a final review. Rick Rodgers from NLM is updating section 5 of the document in light of discussion and will post to Jill for re-integration. Several additional mailing lists were added to the report. There was a question about adding interactive tools such as CUSeeMe and other networked conferencing systems to the report. The group determined such interactive services fall outside the scope of the report and suggested a call for comments on the list. Maintenance - Originally, the report was to be updated every three months. This was determined to be a difficult task and the group decided in Amsterdam to update only once per year. The Internic has agreed to publish the report under WAIS, Gopher, and World Wide Web. CNIDR will maintain and update the report. Updated templates can be sent via email to nir-update@cnidr.org. Larry Manister offered his time to provide an independent check of say four templates (to be assigned by Jill), if other volunteers did the same. NIR Evaluation Kevin Gamiel felt this was one of the areas where the group got carried away and the group needs to re-think what it wants to do here. April Marine discussed the background to the ``checklist.'' This is to be a simple checklist of which clients/servers are available on particular platforms. April had sent a checklist to the mailing list for discussion. The group decided to work on the checklist as a separate document in the interest of moving the current NIR report up the food chain in the next month. However, the checklist should be integrated into the report as an appendix in the future. Changes to April's checklist include: changed word ``taxonomy'' to ``purpose,'' added ``required ancillary tools'' attribute and added ``stack'' attribute. It was noted that the ``X.500 Tools Catalog'' has a similar template and Brendan Kehoe agreed to look into that catalog and report to the list. A proposal was made that the group should evaluate individual server packages. (UNITE has performed some informal evaluation of client software.) The consensus was that the group should not, as it was a political issue and lists devoted to each tool already serve this purpose. Review of the Charter NIR was set up to act as a clearinghouse for information on what is going on in this area. The report was the natural first move on this. There are other things we could do to improve current awareness of what is going on. It might be useful, for example, to post minutes (or at least summaries) of the various related working groups to the NIR list. The group decided to postpone this discussion until the next meeting, by 2 which time the NIR report and checklist should be completed and the mechanisms for updating them should be in place. Attendees Farhad Anklesaria fxa@boombox.micro.umn.edu Sepideh Boroumand sepi@aol.com Luc Boulianne lucb@cs.mcgill.ca Susan Calcari calcaris@internic.net Hallie Carlson hallie@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov Ann Cooper cooper@isi.edu Sallie Fellows sallie@ed.unh.edu Jill Foster Jill.Foster@newcastle.ac.uk Jim Fullton fullton@cnidr.org Kevin Gamiel kgamiel@cnidr.org Arlene Getchell getchell@es.net Judith Grass grass@cnri.reston.va.us Deborah Hamilton debbieh@internic.net Roland Hedberg Roland.Hedberg@rc.tudelft.nl Richard Huber rvh@ds.internic.net Brendan Kehoe brendan@zen.org Jim Knowles jknowles@binky.arc.nasa.gov Walter Lazear lazear@gateway.mitre.org Ben Levy seven@ftp.com Dave Livingston squirrel@vnet.net Gary Malkin gmalkin@xylogics.com Glenn Mansfield glenn@aic.co.jp April Marine april@atlas.arc.nasa.gov Larry Masinter masinter@parc.xerox.com Mark McCahill mpm@boombox.micro.umn.edu Mark Needleman mhn@stubbs.ucop.edu Scott Paisley paisley@central.bldrdoc.gov Pete Percival percival@indiana.edu Marsha Perrott perrott@prep.net Joyce K. Reynolds jkrey@isi.edu Richard Rodgers rodgers@nlm.nih.gov Srinivas Sataluri sri@internic.net Milan Sova sova@feld.cvut.cz Simon Spero ses@unc.edu Margaret St. Pierre saint@wais.com Anthony Valle valle@huntsville.sparta.com Raymond Vega rvega@cicese.mx Jackie Wilson Jackie.Wilson@msfc.nasa.gov 3