Page Comparison

A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.

B.  I expect something else. 

A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.

B. I expect something else. 

A. Allow a user to decide to keep links or remove them ONCE user hits the Derive a new MARC bib record action

B. Always preserve linking

C. Never preserve linking

D. I expect something else. 

Overlay a MARC bib record with fields linked to authority records.

1. A MARC bib record has several bib field(s) linked to authority records
2. Then user overlays the MARC bib record via single record import 

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  

Question 2: What is your preferred outcome? 

A. Allow user to decide whether to keep links (if possible) OR unlink when user at the point user takes the action to overlay record. 

B. Always preserve linking 

C. Never preserve linking. 

D. I expect something else.

Question 1

Question 2

Update bib record via data import with NO change to the linked bib field

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. No change to authority linked MARC 100 bib field
      1. Indicators
      2. Controlled  values
      3. Uncontrolled values
   2. Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file

A. No change thus no impact to linking linking. (also applies to repeated fields)

B. I expect something else. 

Update bib record via data import with A Change to linked bib field value(s) NOT controlled by authority

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. A linked 700 100 field has a change to uncontrolled $e. For example update $e from author to $e author $e narrator
   2. No change to controlled values 
   3. No change to indicators  
   4. Assume multiple 700s exist in file Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file

A. No impact to linking to linking. (also applies to repeated fields) 

B. I expect something else.   

Update bib record via data import with a Change to a linked bib field value Controlled by authority

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. 1. change to Linked MARC bib 100 field $a  Angeloo, Maya BUT is linked to authority record 100 $a Angelou, Maya 
   2. Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  

Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

A. Do not update the field. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record.  FOLIO provides a report when a user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

B. Proceed with update. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that  update conflicts with linked authority record. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-correct to accurate values when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for use to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

C. I expect something else 

Question 1

Question 2

Update bib record via data import AND linked Linked bib field has no $0 AND changes to uncontrolled valuesa different $0 value  

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. Linked MARC 100 bib field without includes a $0 Has changes to uncontrolled value(s) but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349). No other change made this field

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common. We do not maintain $0. 

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. We maintain $0. Definitely edge case.  

Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

A. Continue Proceed with update to uncontrolled value(s) and to $0. Bib field remains controlled (linked to an authority record). FOLIO provides a report when a linked bib field has a missing $0 value. And when user edits bib record via quickMARC then auto-populate $0 when user hits Save. (Applies also applies to repeatable fields too) 

B. I expect something else 

Update bib record via data import AND Linked bib field has a different $0 value  

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. Linked MARC 700 bib field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349). No other change made to this MARC bib 700 field
   2. Assume multiple 700s exist in file

Update bib record via data import AND Linked bib field has a different or no $0 and change to a controlled value in an import file to be updated. 

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. Linked MARC bib 100 field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349) .OR no $0 at all 
   2. And subfield $d has changed from 1900 - 1998 to 1900 - 2000 

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common . We do not maintain $0.that the controlled value is changed. 

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. We maintain $0. Definitely edge case.  

Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

A. Do not update the field. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record.  FOLIO provides a report when a user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

B. Proceed with update of $0 and $d. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that  update conflicts with linked authority record. that the $d and $0 updates conflict and should be manually reviewed. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-correct to accurate values when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for use user to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

C. I expect something else 

Question 1

Question 2

Update bib record via data import and contains multiples of the same repeatable MARC field and one of them is linked AND has no $0 AND Linked bib field has a different $0 or no $0 and change to a uncontrolled value. 

1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
   1. Several MARC bib 700 fields that are linked and some are unlinked. One of the linked MARC bib 700 field has no $0Linked MARC bib 100 field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349) OR no $0 at all 
   2. And subfield $e has changed from  $e author to $e author $e narrator

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common . We do not maintain $0.that the controlled value is changed. 

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. We maintain $0. Definitely edge case.  

Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

A.Continue with update. Bib field remains controlled (linked to Do not update the field due to the wrong $0. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record).  FOLIO provides a report when a linked bib field has a missing $0 value. And when user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

B. Proceed with update of $0 and $e. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that the $0 update conflicts and should be manually reviewed. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-populate $0 correct to accurate value when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for user to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

BC. I expect something else 

Question 1

Question 2