Page Comparison

meeting notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1umiCI56ZL8CvA6uPuQ_Skz04la699js-sT0ArW6IxCE/edit

The Product Council was introduced to the new technical writer Marsha Borensztajn. Round 2 and Round 3 groups are being framed as MVP. Round 4 are implemented in Summer of 2021. Thes is These are "post-MVP" groups. Holly talked about ranking post-MVP features. The deadline for this will be June 1. New bilingual Product Owner, Lucy Liu, has begun and is working with the Shanghai Libraries.

Laura asked whether the group would like to meet to discuss MVP features together.

• Laura Wright - Cornell - Voyager - Laura demonstrated. 
  • screenshots: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q83p69QEFeXS3etYHz5-mV06NC3TaT9L
  • Bibliographic record for the first title of a boundwith. That bib record has a holdings record.
  • 852 has a public note that includes a note, boundwith and provided slides.
  • There is one item per bound with. Public catalog (Blacklight) displays the titles that are part of the boundwith. The  Availability does not display accurately.
• Reagan Wiechert - Sierra - Sierra does not use holdings - everything is in an item record. In Sierra, boundwiths are built by linking records together.  There is nothing explicit in the public catalog to expose this linking. Once you link records, there is no way to tell which one the item record was originally attached to. You can unlink records, although it is a cumbersome process. Reagan is not aware of a way to generate a list of boundwiths. A barcode search brings up the first record that the item is linked to.
• Lehigh - OLE - 
  • https://confluence.cc.lehigh.edu/display/LTSTS/SC+TRX+-+Bound+withs
  • Example of public display - https://asa.lib.lehigh.edu/Record/168993
  • When deleting in OLE message:
     Image Added
• Chicago - OLE
  • Does not use BoundWith functionality in OLE. Did not get it to work they way they want. 
  • They use a "dummy" item.
  • There's a note in the bibliographic record to indicate that it is a bound with
• Felix - Their system has a two level structure - bib and item. The local ILS does the linking. One barcode links out to item ids so they are one physical unit. Details: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5n78Hdfx8oYW-yn6hrI5Yhc3UmnvN3jWdQ7Rjnfy3k/edit#
  • Public display does not show items are bound together.
  • In FOLIO would like one barcode since that needs to be unique
  • In FOLIO ability to link bibs to a barcode
  • System displays current availability
  • the Barcode just lives in one random item record in the union catalogue (CBS database)

Ann-Marie - "Light bulb moment for me and hoping it gets captured. If (in special circumstances) duplicate barcodes are allowed in item records, then circulation can be tracked at the UUID level, but item availability status for all linked item UUIDs (based on having the same barcode number) could be updated for all. That doesn't resolve the "we need to link holdings instead of items" situation, but maybe it gets us a little closer?"

• Sara - Aleph - Use for monographs
  • The ITM is used to link out to the ADM record number. the ADM record is an administrative record. These don't have holdings at UMass. The ANA links out to the bib record and doesn't have (or tends not to have) a ADM record
  • Displays in online catalog
  • Use this for analytics - all of items on one parent. 
  • Confusing for staff
  • Identification becomes important for weeding projects.

Jessica Janecki commented that she looked at all related Jira's and in general the UXPRODs could use cleaning up, attention, and updating. 

Action: Laura suggested reconvening the boundwith group. Please add your name to this page: Representation of analytics and bound with records in Inventory

Sara commented that the RM group is talking about relationships. Would it be worthwhile reaching out to Owen to see if there is work done that could be reused? Laura thought that would be a good idea, but perhaps after boundwiths needs have been established. Agreement is needed on what kind of entities we want to link to each other. How do we want those to behave? 

Felix noted that knowing prior to migration how boundwiths will be handled.

for future meeting(s)

features:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IoGBR4uWXCTDeag5tlMf0fRD0BFDb8r84IOgS0ZUUUE/edit?usp=sharing

ranking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g8pCNmg2DrGJzUAtQHXPas8M9WIDXijnY4q666teeDc/edit#gid=0

Action: How can we effectively address features and prioritization? How can we look collectively at what has not yet been developed and what is most important?

Add ideas here

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

VZG

Stanford

Index Data