2020-11-12 Metadata Management Meeting notes

Notes from today's meeting

Note especially:

• MARCcat: May be discussed at next week's at PC with Harry and Ann-Marie, or a future PC meeting.
  • Some are editing in consortial systems and moving data in/out of FOLIO, and not storing MARC in FOLIO
  • Some are editing in OCLC and importing/exporting, with QM for small updates
  • Others?
• How does FOLIO attract libraries to the community if there is no internal working MARC cataloging tool? If there was not a full MARC cataloging tool in FOLIO, what does that do to the adoptability of FOLIO?
• Next week, be prepared to talk about what your library is doing in terms of MARC cataloging
• To date, only 4 libraries are requiring MARC Holdings, and resources haven’t been allocated to that development work yet
• What resources does your organization have to help this along?
• If more resources need to be put into a MARC cataloging tool in FOLIO, what areas get set aside or delayed due to resource constraints?

What do we really need from a MARC cataloging tool? 

Can we ask at Cult to hand over the code, and put a focused development team on this? The problem is there are limitations in available developers. Has there been any analysis on whether or not the work that at Cult has done can be used and developed upon? This will be part of the PC conversation - these assessments. Ann-Marie has been in conversation with Scan Bit and at Cult. They would like to get a "scratch environment" set up - an environment not connected to FOLIO, but something we can test. 

Laura wants to make sure each institution's product council rep knows what members of the MM SIG think.

Felicia (via chat): "We're really concerned about MARCCAT @ Texas A&M because we're scheduled to go live next summer"

Laura (via chat): "Felicia, TAMU is planning to keep holdings in MARC, is that correct?"

Patricia (via chat): "University of Alabama is really concerned also for MARCCAT, we follow NISO MARC holding standards."

Chicago is using cataloging In OCLC as their workflow and is not playing on incorporating MARCCat into their workflow.

MARC Holdings may be started by Scanbit in R1,but probably it will not make that release.

Jason (via chat): "To back up Christie from Chicago, not using MARCCat is also simply a different workflow for Cornell, too (not a workaround)… but a decision to move away from MFHD alongside using OCLC for cataloging anyway."

Lisa F. (via chat): "While we're discussing MARC, can you put on the next agenda what is the status of the development of the function of moving MARC records from OCLC to FOLIO?" - Answer - this is slated to be part of R1 "Iris" - will have functionality in March.

PC Vision & Strategy

+ New Governance Model

Introduction

Vision and strategy paper

Comments and feedback are requested and will be accepted until Thursday, November 12, 2020

New Governance Model

Feedback on new governance model

____________________________

1. Vision and Strategy Statement
   • Produced by a small group including some members of the MMSIG. Started out by reviewing the existing Vision Statement.
     Vision statement was updated 
   • For each strategic objective they tried to have at least one strategic initiative.
   • Comments:
     • A lot of conversation was spent on linked data, data not in MARC, and other future objectives. Was encouraged that the forward thinking approach was valued. Where do the user groups belong? Christie suggested we think about user groups and the language in this document. 
     • Sara commented about how do we make the community "all of use". How do we get input and participation from users. 
     • Dracine commented that some of participation needs to come from the members' initiatives.
     • Jason - There are varying depths to bulleted lists. Was it clear in the conversations that new apps could be developed in the next three years, or is this time simply thought of for "shoring up" current development. Laura - the group was trying to balance being aspirational vs being practical. There was an intent to not be too specific, which accounts for some of points made in the document to be less specific. There was not statement that apps would not be developed in the next three years. Jason commented that this document is "great work" and very helpful and wonderful for the community.
     • Laura would like to have a discussion on the purpose of a SIG going forward. Jackie would like to invite new members at all times - make it clear this is an open group. She doesn't feel there is any real reason to change names. The purpose of the group can still evolve.
     • Ann-Marie agrees with the idea that members should be welcome. Space for practical applications and practices should be made.
     • Sara advocated for the ERM model, where every other meeting is dedicated to practical application of the app.

Action: Please review the governance model for next week. 

Add ideas here

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u1tvfVxn6i3fTImrWWCYHlh7RT5cf3_G7YgDuxKob4M/edit

x

VZG

Stanford

Index Data