...
Discussion items
| Notetaker | Christie | |||||||||
| Announcements | ||||||||||
| PC update |
| |||||||||
Data Import: Seeking examples of MARC records for any MARC Modifications actions for modifying the 001, LDR, and/or fixed fields in incoming MARC bibliographic records. | ||||||||||
| Review of the parking lot | Continued from last week MM SIG Parking Lot (restructured) The previous MM SIG Parking Lot (Old) has been renamed and moved under the new parking lot. Discussion about whether the topics are still relevant and need to be added to a future agenda. Possibly create an archive for the topics that are retired from the list Referential cataloging - term used early in the project - copy cataloging / pointing to external cataloging. We have already made a lot of decisions that have moved us away from this model of cataloging within FOLIO. Suggestion that we remove this from the list and if we do need to revisit it the SIG should redefine our needs based on the current cataloging ecosystem / roadmap within FOLIO. Where does discovery come from - Is this done or are there other discussions around suppression and where discovery data comes from. There are future questions about non-marc sources of data and what elements are missing for Discovery. Maybe reach out to the discovery working group in FOLIO for periodic updates? Maybe MM Sig needs a liason to the discovery group to make sure that communications and discussions are in sync. Is there anyone in the MM Sig who is on the discovery working group. Discovery Integration Subgroup (Is the group still active? Anecdotal evidence suggests it is though the wiki page suggests that the group was intended to end late in 2022.) Protecting local edits - There are system wide protected fields and the ability to over. Still a discussion topic for data import subgroup. Not yet is there the ability to protect a field just in one load, nor are there protected fields for editing in quickmarc or inventory. Multiple graphical representations - this is still important. There are still questions about how exactly we want this implemented. Perhaps we need to involve technical council and entity management? How do we have a single entity with multiple scripts available. Right now we have torepresent the two scripts as two different | |||||||||
| Preliminary item status work | (OLD ACCOUNT) Erin Nettifee |
Questions about keeping Data import and Inventory behavior in sync - Item Record Statuses and Data Import
There is no identified release or identified resources for this. Defining issues in Jira provides a framework for identifying the resources and that is what is being done now. It is not possible to change an item status to Available from within Inventory. There are use cases for this. Changes are to the Inventory UI and would allow to change to Available when item record status is in the list. Two stories: one for Inventory behavior and one for permissions. There is a question about whether this work may be more complicated given any dependencies on the underlying item statuses. Given the focus on using check-in to make items available, should we consider leveraging the check-in api from within Inventory to check something in? Another question came up about the business logic associated with receiving - on order to in process. Will this impact any of that business logic? Breaking workflows is also the possibility for other statuses that have workflows associated with them. Another concern was raised about the prescriptive nature of this. If there are no system-wide ramifications then maybe we should implement in a way to allow institutions to determine their workflows rather than they system. There were also concerns that doing so would create problems with workflows in other institutions. This will be discussed more at the acquisitions sig, which is the next step for this JIRA. | ||||||||
...