...
https://zoom.us/j/337279319 (pw: folio-lsp)
Attendees
Discussion Items
| Time | Item | Who | Description | Goals/Info/notes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2min | Administrivia | Note taker: Jana Freytag | |||||
| 20 Min | Reporting | Discussion on reporting issues | 20 Min | Title level request | Title level requests update |
...
| 20Min | Requests | request sorting issue:
|
Meeting Notes
Reporting:
- Why is LDP transferred to metaDB: metaDB is preferred because it is a more advanced software to LDP
- will people have to rewrite their queries after trasition to metaDB - Queries we have might get transferred - but if not it will be happening manually
- automatic translation of local queries (LDP → metaDB) would be great
- Differences in tables must be taken into account for this transfer
- raw data FOLIO → gets unpacked in the metaDB
- In first wave of query translation there will be the old json blob still available
- Teams for the major SIGs were formed, which are working on building queries
- Reporting SIG in the moment is planning to put together trainings for people to get acquainted with building queries
- How does the community deal with changes to the data models (changes to names of data fields, removing data fields, ...)
- Reporting SIG does not get the information on changes early enough does the RA SIG get these Info?
- brought up usually on functional levels by POs
- maybe not often clear to all SMEs but the POs try to point it out whenever it occurs
- Could being part of the AI Group (e.g. being in the loop of changes to the data model) help?
- Check Captions for Topic: call number by Joanne:
17:29:37 So, yeah, Joanne, did you. Yeah, um, did I understand you to say just know that I'm item records were getting called numbers or did get call numbers at the item record level.
17:29:43 I know, I didn't say that. Um, what did you say because I said holdings got an effective location. Right, right. That was my understanding. Okay, okay, because I'm seeing that a lot of our records don't seem to have a
17:30:19 item record lunches. Okay, which is a real pain in the neck. Yeah, don't even have the effective call number information Oh record. No, no data load problem.
17:30:15 Oh, is it. Okay, I will, I will try to hunt out examples and and present that because I know that some of the queries that I'm running. I get blanks where I should have call numbers.
17:30:32 And why should this be, you know, so I will have to find some concrete examples and and present it to somebody, I'm not sure who, because there are separate fields like there's the item record level, call number right fields, yep, yep.
- trying to determine which queries are needed:
- two ways:
- derived table queries (joins data for regular use) (e.g. Item table and locations table)
- most libraries using these derived table run these queries nightly
- report queries: run as you need it (result: spread sheet); needed once; general queries (the Reporting SIG needs help to form a standard set)
- derived table queries (joins data for regular use) (e.g. Item table and locations table)
- The Reporting SIG wants to help people to write their own queries
- two ways:
- Future features for LDP: save and share queries
- We'll have these valuable Reporting cross meetings monthly from now on
Requests:
"Sort results by barcode" does not sort properly
- Problem is the data sync between the business layer module and storage layer module
- Situation; when sort by item barcode, the items with empty fields in the searched entities brings up problems
- Will be solved by solving the data synchronization issues
- Feedback:
- edge case? if the barcode search is still functional then this is ok.
- item and requester barcode
- Could be a problem for libraries having open hold shelf sorting their books by user barcode situations
- everyone agrees with the prioritization of P4 or P3