Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Cate Boerema (Inactive) | Assignee: | Charlotte Whitt |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | crossrmapps, inventory, metadatamanagement, post-v1 | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimate: | Small < 3 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimator: | Charlotte Whitt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Niels Erik Nielsen | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Low | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Niels Erik Nielsen | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Estimation Notes and Assumptions: | Dependencies between the KB and Inventory; and the seamless push and pull of data between apps (FOLIO-1273) - there are som system design discussion to have here. How is this process for refresh to be scheduled? Will KB push this or will inventory pull it? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 62 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Ranking Note: | CW: PO rank aligned with Calculated Total rank. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: BNCF (MVP Feb 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (Full TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Leipzig (ERM Aut 2019): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Purpose: A process is needed to periodically refresh the record against the source (Knowledge base). Essentially, this is about defining how to keep update of eResources, which originate from the KB, and then have gotten a fuller description of the bibliographic record in Inventory (eResources in Inventory). Two use cases: updates to access information in holdings for selected titles (e.g., platform change, URL change) & updates to Instances – updates to Instances depends on first having ability to create Instances based on titles in KBs |
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 11/Jun/18 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt, I know this feature came directly from the MM tab on the v1 roadmap, but given what you know about the current design for Inventory, does it still make sense? In what scenario would this functionality be needed/used? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 11/Jun/18 ] |
|
Hi Cate Boerema - oh, this is an example on, where the original road map text, and what we have now and the current thinking is not that easy to map 1:1. So if this story: My thinking was b) |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 11/Jun/18 ] |
|
Thanks, that makes sense. I am going to add that to the description |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 02/May/19 ] |
|
Would this only be for Instance records? And only for Instance records that do not have underlying MARC records? If the Instance is related to a MARC record, then the refresh would happen via whatever process is refreshing the underlying MARC record, not via any direct connection between KB and Inventory. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 03/May/19 ] |
|
Hi Ann-Marie Breaux - good point. This story is written way back when we reviewed the Functional matrix, and my latest comment was from June 2018, when we didn't have any idea of how to deal with underlying MARC records maintained in MARCcat This story is about dependencies between the KB (eHoldings and other KBs) and Inventory; and the seamless population of data from other apps. Now Q2 2019 we are much wiser about app interaction - e.g. Order < > Inventory, and we should be able to better define the process, in the context of the system design we have aligned around. We might still need to figure out in more detail how the refresh is supposed to work, and also e.g. a way to schedule the refresh (to be an automatic process, and not someone need to remember to do). Regarding maintain of Instance records with an underlying MARC record, being maintained in MARCcat, then I can't see that these records should have any different data flow that any other type of records - so then the refresh would be the MARC record in MARCcat, and the updates being populated via SRS to Inventory. Wouldn't you say so too? Ann-Marie Breaux |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 22/May/19 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt, in order this feature should we address or review
Also one more note: due to FOLIO's current architecture there is no way to push any metadata updates to container/instance/item records. And speaking for EBSCO KB, we do not have any APIs that send metadata changes only. I cannot speak for Owen Stephens and eResources. Either way, I am unsure how we can proceed with this feature until
cc: Martina.Schildt and Owen Stephens |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 07/Aug/19 ] |
|
Khalilah Gambrell Charlotte Whitt Cate Boerema Martina.Schildt Owen Stephens There was a change on this Jira, so it surfaced in my brain again today when it showed up in my inbox. Not sure when/if this will be prioritized, but please include me in discussions. If any of this involves MARC records, then we need to take SRS into account, not just Inventory. Thank you! |