Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Recordings are posted Here (2022+) and Here (pre-2022)                   Slack channel for Q&A, discussion between meetings

...

  • Extend MatchValueLoader implementations to allow filtering according to Qualifiers and MatchCriteria:

  • Identifier matching should allow for qualifiers, compare part, and match criteria

    • Are there any specific match use cases that you want to use that you cannot (NOT MARC-MARC right now; that's next)

    • Any qualifier/begins/contains matches that are not working but that are needed?

  • MARC-MARC matching
    • Lotus: Allows for any field in a MARC record except
    • Are these needed in Morning Glory?
      • Matching for 100-899 fields? (I think they work, but not heavily tested yet)
      • Repeatable fields (e.g. 024, 035)
        • Incoming record: Only first version of the field is considered (doublechecking with the dev on whether it's the first field that has the requested indicator(s) and/or subfield, or just the first field, regardless of indicators/subfield)
        • If it takes Ind 1, Ind 2, Subfield into account (in addition to the data)
        • Does FOLIO need to check all incoming 024s against all 024s in the existing SRS records? Or just the first?
        • Wildcards for Ind 1, Ind 2, Subfield (repeatable or non-repeatable fields)
          • Needed?
    • Additional info from A-M/Igor:
      • Let's pretend that these fields are in an incoming record: (Field Ind1 Ind2 Subfield)

        • 024 _ _ $a 12345
          024 1 1 $a 45678
          024 1 _ $x 67890
          024 2 2 $x 67890
      • And the fields in the existing SRS record are

        • 024 2 2 $x 67890
          024 _ _ $a 12345
          024 1 _ $x 13579
          024 1 1 $a 45678
          024 1 _ $x 67890

      • I understand that for repeatable fields, FOLIO Lotus only pays attention to the first incoming field, not the rest, but compares to any matching fields in the existing record.

      • Now - setting up different match profiles, I want to be sure I understand the logic that is in place now:

      • If the match profile is 024 _ _ $a: 

        • Matches, because the incoming first 024 looks for an existing 024 with blank indicators and $a and the same value (even though that is the second 024 in the existing record)


        If the match profile is 024 1 1 $a:

        • Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 11 and $a (which is the second 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 11 and $a and the same value (which is the fourth 024 in the existing record)


        If the match profile is 024 1 _ $x:

        • Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 1_ and $x (which is the third 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 1_ and $x and the same value (which is the fifth 024 in the existing record)


        If the match profile is 024 2 2  $x:

        • Matches, because the first incoming 024 with indicators 22 and $x (which is the fourth 024 in the incoming file) looks for an existing 024 with indicators 22 and $x and the same value (which is the first 024 in the existing record)
      • However!
        Let’s pretend the incoming record looks like this:
        • 024 1 1 $a 12345
          024 1 1 $a 45678
      • And the existing SRS record is
        • 024 1 1 $a 45678
      • If the match profile is 024 1 1 $a, SRS does not match, even though “024 1 1 $a 45678” is present in both incoming and existing records.
        SRS starts searching a field, that is specified in match profile, scrolling the incoming record from the very beginning, as usual, and takes the first occurrence of <024 1 1 $a>. The first occurrence is “024 1 1 $a 12345". So, SRS takes “024 1 1 $a 12345” and can’t find it in the existing record 
    • Future topic: See if we can make the 005 modifiable, so that the existing one can be copied into a 9xx field via a MARC modification rule so that we can keep the date of last OCLC edit to a record (Lloyd)

Chat:

From Raegan Wiechert to Everyone 01:11 PM
There are only two positions in the 008 that can't be edited.
Type and Blvl


From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:25 PM
We definitely want the 005 to change when we change the record
Everything is edited, it’s getting a 999

From Tim Watters to Everyone 01:27 PM
005 is not specific to OCLC. It is about your system https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd005.html

From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:27 PM
Maybe you can copy it into another field

From Autumn Faulkner (she/her) to Everyone 01:32 PM
no strong feelings here

From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:34 PM
Yeah not using so idk

From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:38 PM
That is a good idea

From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:52 PM
yes

From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:53 PM
yes