Arlene Allen (SB), Claudia Bayless (BK), Christi Bengard (SC), Jim Dolgonas (OP), Richard Drake (SF), Kathy Keller (OP), Debbie Lauriano (DV), Ed Martinek (SF), Bob Merryman (SD), Benny Min (OP), Caroline Rider (IR), Michael Strizich (SF), Richard Tamm (BK), Vance Vaughan (BK/OP), Jerry Wilcox (OP), Don Worth (LA)

• on 04/30/98, Phase I completed - production deployment of University Directory including start of Net ID generation by University Directory and Campus Authentication Interface from University Directory
• UCSD and UCI confirmed some testing of Campus Authentication Interface data had begun

Issues (supplementing issues raised at prior meetings) and Conclusions:

• UCLA is still awaiting General Counsel clarification as to whether or not it is acceptable for a campus to allow a vendor to utilize the Net ID and the Student ID from the University Directory to develop applications (under the authorization of the campus) whereby a student could access that vendor's application; OP needs to follow-up.
• Using the University Directory "database" as the source for generating the hardcopy "University of California Directory" was again discussed.
• It was noted that the current annual "directory" system interface used to create the hardcopy "University of California Directory" does not include any ID fields, e.g., SSN, Employee ID; further, it generally allows for up to three iterations of a data element, e.g., job title, campus address; RE: campus address, the data passed on the interface, however, is not enough to be used for a US Postal mailing, i.e., may just contain a building and room number.
• Reconciling employee data in the University Directory from multiple sources (PPSIVR interface and "directory" interface) will be difficult given that PPSIVR selection criteria includes requirement of having a SSN; not all local "directory" systems contain either the SSN itself or some other ID field that could be used to map to another local system database to extract the SSN; reconciliation would likely still be difficult even if all local "directory" systems could provide the SSN and so, procedures need to be discussed/defined to address having an individual in the "directory" interface, but not in the PPSIVR interface. Campuses are to consider difficulty of adding SSN or Net ID to "directory" interface.
• Release Flag "gradations" for an individual in the University Directory was discussed and based on preliminary recaps of what local systems currently support in the way of Release Flag functionality, more rather than less granularity was likely to be requested for the University Directory; three campuses volunteered to poll their telecommunications people for further information.
• Among the suggested updates to the 1st draft new campus "directory" daily interface were:
  • adding a new "Employee ID" data element
  • adding a new "Plus 4 Zip Code" data element
  • adding a new "Mail Code" data element
  • allowing the "Net ID" data element to be an optional value on the interface
  • allowing for up to three iterations of the Work Phone Number
  • allowing only one iteration of the other previously discussed Phone Number Types: Work Fax Number, Work Pager Number, Work Cell Phone Number
• Among the suggested updates to the 1st draft new campus student daily interface were:
  • dropping Permanent Address data elements (due to anticipated campus registrar concerns over usage/access and there not being overwhelming need for it)
  • allowing the "Net ID" data element to be an optional value on the interface
• UCLA cited the possibility of housing a local campus-wide ID in their certificates (in addition to the university-wide "Net ID"); this might then eliminate their request to generate Net IDs for students who had been accepted to a campus, though who had not yet necessarily paid either their "Statement of Intent to Register" or "Registration" fees; UCSD suggested that before this request was confirmed to be withdrawn, further discussions should be held with the respective local campuses

• distribute meeting notes to group
• distribute General Counsel write-ups after both responses received from General Counsel (only initial response currently available) to group
• distribute updated drafts for proposed new campus daily "directory" and student interface specs to group for subsequent local discussions with campus system contacts
• all campuses to comment at next meeting on the ability to include SSN in "directory" interface
• UCI, UCLA, and UCSD will poll local campus telecommunications units to recap how "release flags" are currently utilized
• provide more detailed information as to the design of the University Directory (database)
• propose next conference call after campuses have had time to discuss above draft interfaces

Return to Meeting Agendas & Minutes Page