Inventory
(UXPROD-785)
|
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | Q3 2020 | Parent: | Inventory |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Charlotte Whitt | Assignee: | Charlotte Whitt |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | migration-load, migrations, round_iv | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Inventory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Prokopovych | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): | R1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: hbz (TBD): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): | R4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Overview: When migrating data there is a need for University Chicago, Cornell, Duke and other libraries to have the possibility to mark holdings statement notes either as public notes or non public. As these notes are repeatable in MARC, then the requirement is to have these holdings statements notes in the holdings being repeatable. Having the statements notes being repeatable will make the mapping for Data Import and Data Export easier. Usecase: UX-mock ups to be discussed with the MM-SIG 6/25/2020:
At meeting 6/25/2020 the MM-SIG decided not to follow the general UX for notes as implemented for instance notes, holdings notes, and item notes. NOTE (from Ann-Marie Breaux) This has relevance for Data Import, Data Export, and Data Migration since the schema change will affect how data is mapped from incoming MARC Holdings, mapped to outgoing MARC holdings created on-the-fly, and existing holdings data that is being migrated into FOLIO. Data import and Data export will probably be dealing with this in Q4 2020. Not sure about the timing or urgency for Data migration. cc: Magda Zacharska Ian Walls |
| Comments |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 20/Jul/20 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt and Ian Walls This seems to me to be a blocker for migration of holdings data. Right now, if a library migrates their holdings notes into the Inventory Holdings record, public and staff notes will be smushed together. Then when the two separate fields are created for the Inventory holdings record, that data will need to be split somehow. Is there any chance of increasing the priority for this so that it gets done in Q3?? |
| Comment by Ian Walls [ 22/Jul/20 ] |
|
If one is planning on using the mapping rules to build their Holdings records, then yes, this could throw a monkey wrench into the works. But up until now, I've just made my Holdings record without the mapping, relying on custom scripting. What volume of data is expected to be impacted by public/non-public notes on the holdings statements? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 23/Jul/20 ] |
|
I'm not sure - it would probably be worth a convo with MM SIG - maybe just on the Slack channel. Will it be a discovery, migration, import, and/or export issue, if the public/staff notes for holdings statements are smushed together for now, and may be separated in the future, when separate public/staff options are available? If it's an issue, can you estimate how many records or percentage of records might be affected for your library? Other thoughts? I'm happy to post to the Slack channel if you think it would be helpful |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 23/Jul/20 ] |
|
The thing is, that this could be solved easily by just adding an extra element to the holdings statement array, but if we are suggesting having multiple staff notes, and multiple public notes to one statements, then remodeling is needed. CC: lew235 |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 23/Jul/20 ] |
|
Christie Thomas Natascha Owens and I reviewed the suggested solutions and we agreed upon implementing the solution adding one extra data element to the existing array, which will make it possible to distinct between staff notes and public notes. Multiple notes from each category will then be concatenated, and separated by a ";" |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 23/Jul/20 ] |
|
Excellent! That sounds like a fine solution to me. Any ideas on when this might be implemented? Did Chicago say whether it was important to have it sorted out at point of migration, or could they wait? Duke is the other one that (I think) would have a strong opinion about it. |
| Comment by Charlotte Whitt [ 23/Jul/20 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux yes, I'll talk with Cate Boerema and let's hope we can have this tabled rather sooner than later. |
| Comment by Cate Boerema (Inactive) [ 03/Sep/20 ] |
|
Hi Charlotte Whitt. I think this UXPROD can be closed. |