Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | In Progress |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | None | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | cataloging, inventory, metadatamanagement, needs-data-import-coordination, schema-change | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimate: | Medium < 5 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Analysis Estimator: | Charlotte Whitt | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Large < 10 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Michal Kuklis | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | Medium | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XL < 15 days | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Marc Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 87 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| PO Ranking Note: | CW: This feature is a newly created feature split out of UXPROD-1420. The low calculated total rank can be explained partly with the libraries have not yet ranked the feature. I'll lower the feature to reflect a couple of libraries can wait up to a quarter after Go live, and one library can wait one year. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): | R2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Overview: Wrap-up work on the Instance record. Parts of the Instance record as of Q4 2018 were only following thin-thread and half-baked implementation of identified missing metadata elements. Work will focus on
Usecase:
Reguirements gathered by the MM-SIG: |
| Comments |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 01/Aug/19 ] |
|
I cleared out the rankings on these split off features as, per PC request, it is our policy not to carry over rankings when we split. |
| Comment by Andy Horbal [ 05/Aug/19 ] |
|
We (Cornell) think this would be helpful to RA folks. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 19/Aug/19 ] |
|
Removed Q3 2019 fix version as this did not make MVP |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 20/Apr/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt and lew235 Do you know what release this feature will be part of? I'll need to coordinate some Data Import work with it. Is this an Instance element that we should plan to control with the MARC mapping when Source = FOLIO? Or should it always be editable in the Instance and never controlled by an SRS MARC?
|
| Comment by lew235 [ 23/Apr/21 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux If I remember correctly the results of a discussion last week, we do want this element controlled by the MARC. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 28/May/21 ] |
|
You remember correct lew235: Unable to render embedded object: File (Skärmavbild 2021-05-28 kl. 16.51.59.png) not found. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 07/Jun/21 ] |
|
Thanks for the feedback, lew235. Charlotte Whitt: is this instance work definitely going to be done in R3/Iris? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 07/Jun/21 ] |
|
Yes, this is work the Prokopovych team will pick up for R3 2021. Please let me know what features for Data Import, Data Export and qucikMARC I should link to, so we reflect the 'theme' of updates. |
| Comment by Magda Zacharska [ 07/Jun/21 ] |
|
Charlotte Whitt - do I interpret this feature correctly that it will introduce new properties on the Instance record level but will not modify existing ones. Is this correct? |
| Comment by Felix Hemme [ 08/Jun/21 ] |
|
One aspect of this ticket is important for institutions implementing with the GBV library network. Libraries in Germany create a relationship between articles and the superordinate unit (journal/book) by linking via MARC 21 773 / PICA+ 031A and 039B. That enables us to navigate from an article metadata record directly to the parent instance record (and vice versa). Having the "In:" part seems like a minimal needed solution for GBV. Charlotte Whitt Am I missing some other way of storing the source information of an article here? Where would we put the source, year, volume, issue, and page data in an instance record? |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 08/Jun/21 ] |
|
Felix Hemme and Magda Zacharska the Related instances is about display of data, which are stored in a different instance record (with a different UUID). So this is about linking to another 'version' a related instace, which is already in the collection. What you also talk about Felix Hemme, is the option to enter data - add information - about a given journal/book which is not in the collection? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 16/Jun/21 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt If I'm understanding correctly, this will behave differently from the Preceding/Succeeding data element.
|
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 16/Jun/21 ] |
|
And reminder for Ann-Marie Breaux If Data Import needs to do work to support this, keep in mind the fixes that were done in
|
| Comment by lew235 [ 16/Jun/21 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux (re the question to Charlotte above) my expectation would be the Related titles behave the same way as Preceeding/Succeeding titles. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 30/Aug/21 ] |
|
Holly Mistlebauer Marc Johnson - the Prokopovych team pulled in the work on Swap of Inventory search using postgreSQL to be replaced by Elastic search (
|
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 05/Jan/22 ] |
|
Based on the Prokopovych grooming session on 1/4/2022 and the pointing of stories defining the work, this feature can not be finished before the feature freeze on 1/28/2022. We will scope the work for Morning Glory R2 2022. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 19/Apr/22 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt Once this work in is place, could you check to see if it causes any issues for quickMARC, Inventory Single Record Import, Import, Export? I think we'll aim to accommodate this new field in Nolana for Import, but I'm hoping the Prokopovych work on this will not trigger problems in Morning Glory. Thank you! |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Apr/22 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt Could you confirm - once this element is added to the Instance, should it be controlled by the underlying MARC record (if source = MARC) or not? Do we know that yet, or do we need to talk with MM SIG or DI subgroup about it? Thank you! |
| Comment by Marc Johnson [ 04/May/22 ] |
I think that will depend upon if processes that edit instances respect the existing representation and only amend fields they understand. If instead they construct their own new representation, new fields like this could be lost (in effect deleted) during an update. |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 21/Jun/22 ] |
|
Hey Charlotte Whitt - I am going to ask the same questions as Ann-Marie Breaux. Based on the below screenshot, it appears that we need to update MARC bib default mapping to support this requirement as it can control this information? If this is the correct, is the plan to have all MARC fields not crossed out included in default mapping? And thus data import work is required? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 21/Jun/22 ] |
|
Hi Khalilah Gambrell and Charlotte Whitt If we sequence it the way we did for Admin notes, then if Prokopovych does the work in Nolana, Data Import would do corresponding work in Orchid. If the DI work needs to be done in Nolana, we definitely need to understand that. And this all presumes that the data elements and data schema for Preceding/Succeeding, Other related titles, and Parent/Child are not consolidated (a conversation in another Jira someplace). If they are, that will will require more analysis and testing, plus figuring out how to deal with existing data already in the current configuration. We've also had issues with preceding/succeeding data where the fields behave differently if the instance source = MARC (controlled by the SRS MARC 780/785 fields) versus if the instance source = FOLIO (allows lookup and linking to another instance) |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 05/Dec/22 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt For now, I'm going to assume that this additional data element (related instances) in the Instance is not controlled by any underlying MARC record and does not need to be created or edited via Data Import. If that is accurate, then we'll plan to ignore all of this for Data Import. If that is not accurate, then please let me know ASAP, so that we can consider how this might affect Data Import for Poppy. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 05/Dec/22 ] |
|
Hi Ann-Marie Breaux - this work is scheduled for Poppy - so I'm not working on this right now. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 05/Dec/22 ] |
|
Thanks, Charlotte Whitt good to know. I saw "In progress" so I thought dev work had started! |