Batch Importer (Bib/Acq)
(UXPROD-47)
|
|
| Status: | Open |
| Project: | UX Product |
| Components: | None |
| Affects versions: | None |
| Fix versions: | TBD | Parent: | Batch Importer (Bib/Acq) |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | TBD |
| Reporter: | Jennifer Eustis | Assignee: | Ryan Taylor |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | data-import, epam-folijet | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
| Issue links: |
|
||||||||
| Release: | Not Scheduled | ||||||||
| Epic Link: | Batch Importer (Bib/Acq) | ||||||||
| Development Team: | Folijet | ||||||||
| PO Rank: | 0 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Purpose: Enhance the current modifications present for the MARC Bibliographic Modifications field mapping profile User story statement(s): As a user, I need to make modifications to the MARC leader, fixed fields, 001, and 003 on an incoming marc bibliographic file.
Scenarios:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 25/Jan/23 ] |
|
Hi Jennifer Eustis Would it be possible to attach a small file of MARC records with examples of the fields/data that are described in the scenarios? Thank you! |
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ] |
|
Definitely Ann-Marie Breaux . Let me gather them from the 5C and I'll post them here.
|
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ] |
|
Scenario to modify fixed field 008 On Update: This file is for the use case of removing the code 's' in the 008 position 28. The scenario is a round trip. Here, using marc modifications would eliminate a step in the cleanup process. You export the record, then re-import it with a job that modifies the incoming marc srs to remove that 's'. On Create: This cleanup is necessary when we import our new JSTOR purchased ebooks which often have a 's' in that 008 pos. 28. |
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 25/Jan/23 ] |
|
Scenario for Single Record Import and modifying the 001 singleRecordImportFromOCLC.mrc On Update and Create: For files coming from OCLC, we want to remove the prefix from the 001 so that when the 035 is generated from the 001 and 003, there is no prefix. This is what it would look like for this file. Incoming file has: =001 ocn608375358 Result after modification: =001 608375358 The rest of the modifications would be to remove unwanted fields such as the 029, 583s, etc. |
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 12/Apr/23 ] |
|
From Cornell: The use case is to add an 003 when it is missing from incoming records using MARC modifications. This can't be done currently. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 12/Apr/23 ] |
|
Hi Jennifer Eustis (from Cornell?) Would you be adding the 003 to the incoming record so that |
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 12/Apr/23 ] |
|
Ann-Marie Breaux My understanding is that the 003 would be added to the incoming record that that it can be harvested along with the existing 001 to create the 035. Jenn Colt Are there other use cases from Cornell in regards adding the 003 via marc modifications? |
| Comment by Christie Thomas [ 12/Apr/23 ] |
|
At Chicago we would want the 003 to be our local code to qualify the 001 with the instance hrid, thus we would want to always add an ICU to the 003 when it is not present and to persist after the update.
In a previous system this sort of management was a system wide parameter. This could also be handled as a setting for all record management activities. |
| Comment by Jennifer Eustis [ 30/Jun/23 ] |
|
One of the reasons to be able to manipulate the 001 and 003 here at the 5 Colleges is because of how FOLIO currently generates an 035 from the 001 and 003. I would definitely support scenario 4 if it also includes the ability to strip not just leading zeros but also letters. |
| Comment by Jenn Colt [ 11/Jul/23 ] |
|
When using an OCLC match profile, if the 001 has an OCLC prefix and the OCLC number in the 035 does not have a prefix, FOLIO rejects the matching because of there being two "different" OCLC numbers in the incoming record. Being able to remove the prefix from the 001 with a MARC modification would fix this situation. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 28/Jul/23 ] |
|
Hi Jenn Colt What happens if you try a numerics-only match for the incoming and existing OCLC numbers? |
| Comment by Jenn Colt [ 28/Jul/23 ] |
|
I did, it didn't seem to work either. |
| Comment by Ann-Marie Breaux (Inactive) [ 18/Aug/23 ] |
|
Moved from MODDATAIMP project to UXPROD project, since this is a feature |