Features that will be implemented to enhance FOLIO's ability to support consortia (Phase 1)
(UXPROD-4049)
|
|
| Status: | Draft |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | Trillium (R1 2025) | Parent: | Features that will be implemented to enhance FOLIO's ability to support consortia (Phase 1) |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | P3 |
| Reporter: | Christine Schultz-Richert | Assignee: | Khalilah Gambrell |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | ecs, loc, metadatamanagement | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Release: | Ramsons (R2 2024) |
| Epic Link: | Features that will be implemented to enhance FOLIO's ability to support consortia (Phase 1) |
| Front End Estimate: | XXL < 30 days |
| Front End Estimator: | Khalilah Gambrell |
| Front-End Confidence factor: | 20% |
| Back End Estimate: | XXXL: 30-45 days |
| Back End Estimator: | Khalilah Gambrell |
| Back-End Confidence factor: | 20% |
| Development Team: | Spitfire |
| PO Rank: | 0 |
| Description |
|
Current situation or problem: Libraries may want to add local descriptive data to records that are shared which that they may or may not have permission to edit. Currently, almost all descriptive data for MARC-backed Instances are beholden to the data from the underlying SRS MARC record. In scope
Out of scope
Use case(s)
Proposed solution/stories{}
Links to additional info Questions
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 22/Mar/23 ] |
|
Khalilah Gambrell Dennis Bridges Christine Schultz-Richert If this feature is specifically about Shared Instances, is it OK to update the title to reflect that? "Shared record" seems very ambiguous to me. |
| Comment by Christine Schultz-Richert [ 22/Mar/23 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux - yes, I believe you are right that this is about Instances, so I updated the title. |
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 23/Mar/23 ] |
|
Makes sense to me thanks Ann-Marie Breaux! |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 14/May/23 ] |
|
Hey Christine Schultz-Richert and Ann-Marie Breaux is this feature still valid? |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 17/May/23 ] |
|
Hi Khalilah Gambrell I'm not sure. So far, my understanding is that all data in a consortial instance is shared, and there is no local data on it. If local data is needed, the library either 1) clones the consortial instance and edits it in their local tenant or 2) stores that data in a local holdings or item record. I have not heard a clear use case or seen examples of library-specific data that must be stored in a consortial instance. My hesitation with closing this feature is that it was based on a requirement originally identified by Dennis Bridges. I'm happy to close it as "won't do" if Dennis Bridges and Tim Auger think it's OK. |
| Comment by Dennis Bridges [ 17/May/23 ] |
|
This one intended to cover the management of MARC 590 field data. We are working to clarify what is needed here. However, there should not be anything needed here for the Q release. |
| Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 30/Jan/24 ] |
|
No use cases/scenarios have been provided. cc: Dennis Bridges |