Features that will be implemented to enhance FOLIO's ability to support consortia (Phase 1) (UXPROD-4049)

[UXPROD-4144] Allow user to add local descriptive data to Shared Instance record Created: 20/Mar/23  Updated: 05/Feb/24

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

  • Ability to edit the Instance (even if the user does not have permissions to edit the MARC bibliographic record)
  • Ability to add descriptive data to an Instance record that has an underlying MARC bibliographic record 
  • Ability to view the local descriptive data is restricted to those with permissions for that institution

Out of scope 

Use case(s)

  • Local series titles
  • Local collections
  • Others?

Proposed solution/stories{}

 

Links to additional info

Questions

  • What other types of descriptive data need to be added locally?
  • Do we need a way to suppress these from discovery?


 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 

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:37:37 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.