Requests
(UXPROD-790)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | Sunflower (R3 2024) | Parent: | Requests |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Stephanie Buck | Assignee: | Tim Auger |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | IC_review, LC-priority3, LC1, loc, requires-discussion, resourceaccess, title_level_requests | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Potential Workaround: | Patrons will have to search for the issue/copy they'd like, and then request a specific copy. This becomes inefficient when there are numerous copies or issues of items for larger systems. | ||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | Requests | ||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimate: | Small < 3 days | ||||||||||||||||
| Front End Estimator: | Stephanie Buck | ||||||||||||||||
| Front-End Confidence factor: | 30% | ||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimate: | XXL < 30 days | ||||||||||||||||
| Back End Estimator: | Stephanie Buck | ||||||||||||||||
| Back-End Confidence factor: | 60% | ||||||||||||||||
| Development Team: | Volaris | ||||||||||||||||
| PO Rank: | 0 | ||||||||||||||||
| Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): | R5 | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Requests for multivolume series and continuing resources can only be done at the item level. Patrons should be able to request a volume or issue of a series/title without having to specify or select the copy. This is highly valued by public libraries and consortia that serve both public and academic libraries. In scope: Working with (and maybe expanding if needed) the newly implemented title level request functionality (Lotus & Morning Glory releases) Out of scope Use case(s)
Use cases 1-4, 8 would be the initial scope of the dev. Proposed solution/stories Stories
Examples of controlled vocabulary: Record data contains: v., vol., volume, Volume can be considered equivalents Record data contains: part, p., pt., Part can be considered equivalents Proposed solution Solving this problem in total is a big endeavor. The simplest approach is probably to identity/create a controlled vocabulary. This could be used in a variety of ways to create quality improvements in short and long term. Alternatively, we could just apply it upon lookup whenever needed (for making request decisions or, if we want to go further, apply to the display of holdings). Another approach would be do a bulk update on the data in itself. We would also need to apply changes for data import. Links to additional info [tbd] Questions
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Thomas Trutt [ 20/Mar/23 ] |
|
Im just adding this here, even though it has been mentioned in the sig. I don't feel it will be possible to implement this in a reliable way. Even within an institution, and or a serial run, Vol, Issue, Edition can be entered differently and in different fields. I feel this feature would either need to use pattern learning to phrase information into search columns or the institution would need to do massive amounts of data cleanup to before turning this on. I would argue that this should be a separate setting from main TLR setting. |
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 18/Apr/23 ] |
|
Hi Thomas Trutt I think we can move this forward. I have experience mapping to a controlled vocabulary for this very situation. It will not be perfect but even without an automated learning capability, we can make some reasonable assumptions about things like "vol", "v", "volume", "part", etc. and what the normalized form of these values should be along with reasonable default values where we cannot translate (and then reports that allow for libraries to manually modify values). We can then flag these situations so that catalogers can review the record data and make changes to the record data and/or the controlled vocabulary and/or mappings. |
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 18/Apr/23 ] |
|
Irina Pokhylets Giorgi Ninua This will be a fun project. We will want to setup a KT with Stephanie closer to the start of the Quesnelia release. I flagged this as the Q release because we seem to have plenty already for Ramsons and, honestly, it would be beneficial for ReShare to have this in place as soon as possible since, for FOLIO, we have a dependency on it.
|
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 11/May/23 ] |
|
Stephanie Buck I'm rethinking when and how we go about this. The crux of the issues, I believe, is that we need the volume designation data to be normalized across all FOLIO installations. Perhaps we could chat early next week about this one? |
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 15/May/23 ] |
|
Irina Pokhylets next steps:
|
| Comment by Tim Auger [ 16/Jan/24 ] |
|
Irina Pokhylets I would like to scope this back to the minimum only because we would probably not do the work of other teams but, probably, set precedence by introduce a controlled vocabulary. This can go the minimum (use it upon lookup and transform) or the maximum (apply controlled vocabulary at the data level apply for all write operations wherever they live. There would need to introduce some error handling as well (what happens when we don't have a pattern match (v. = volume but num. != volume) and what to do about all of those scenarios. |