Page Comparison

...

✍️ Note taker

Laura Daniels, Lynne Fors, Alissa Hafele, Natascha Owens

...

Item	Presenter	Notes
Announcements		From Christine Schultz-Richert in Slack: I have another round of UAT to share with you all - this time on browsing Instance-level classification numbers. The plan is to run this UAT from today, June 10th, until Monday, June 17th. A form with testing instructions and details can be found here: UAT: Browse instance classification As you can, please take some time to follow the instructions in the UAT form, test out these recent updates, and submit your responses. Your feedback is most appreciated and we look forward to hearing your thoughts. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out! (Christine Schultz-Richert, @christinesr). Thank you! Two MM specific WOLFcon sessions have been approved: 2024-09-25, 3:30 - 4:20 PM: Metadata Management SIG working meeting (hybrid so those unable to travel to London can participate) 2024-09-25, 4:30 - 5:20 PM: Understanding mod-search and indexing Linked Data Production Foundations: pre-conference workshop 2024-09-23 1-4 WOLFcon 2024 Titles and presenters for the workshops can be seen here: https://openlibraryfoundation.org/about/wolfcon/upcoming/
E-resources in inventoryInventory	tbd	Initial conversion see Slack thread How do libraries manage e-resource packages in Inventory? UMass Amherst: They use the `035 9\` to put in unique codes to group records into sets. Locally called a “container code.” Find it insufficient to managing these records as sets in Inventory, e.g. adding/removing titles, changing URL proxy, changing URLs. Use eHoldings interfaced with EBSCO HLM. GBV: They add the ISIL package code (and license year, if applicable) in a local 9XX field, e.g. `912 __ $a ZDB-2-SWI $b 2024`. The value of $a and $b are mapped into the instance identifier array with a dedicated identifier type. For each package there will be a dedicated instance record as well, describing the package. UChicago: is using the model provided by UMass. They don’t use a local knowledge base in FOLIO. Inventory ↔︎ Agreements interaction and linking POLs can be attached to agreement lines. Is there a need to attach Inventory Instance records to Agreement lines? There has been a discussion about adding a reference to the agreement/agreement line/license in the Inventory holdings record in the App Interaction SIG over the last few weeks. How does that fit in? EBSCO FOLIO Implementation Consultants strongly discourage adding subscription ebook packages to FOLIO Inventory as the data changes extremely frequently. Manage these in your knowledge base and/or eHoldings. Only recommend adding purchased, perpetual access ebooks and use that connection to Acquisition apps (e.g. Orders, Invoices, Agreements, Licenses, etc.). Laura Daniels: My assumption is that when we load MARC bibs for e-resources it's because we want them integrated with non-e resources in our discovery environment. So if we don't load records, we need to find another way get the full descriptions indexed for discovery. Christie Thomas: I agree with Laura, but there are so many other reasons. We would like richer bibliographic description for our resources, we need to manage access to similar resources across packages, there is no representation for a package in knowledgebase. We also need to report at the title level on these resources collectively with our other collections. Then there is donor management for these resources. There are so many reasons to want inventory records. In some cases too the inventory records become our source of truth for what titles we have in a package since we can control that in a way that we cannot control the packages in KBs. Some libraries want to be able to manage e-books that they own in parallel with print books in many ways, because they are part of an integrated collection. What happened to the “Container Record” that was discussed some time ago (2017/2018)? Maybe it’s time to circle back to this concept? Revisit the use cases previously defined as needed? General comments that ERM connections should be a little more connected to Inventory. No way to track administrative data about the set of records (licensing terms, title lists, etc.) Consider the linking from Inventory to ERM apps separately from the need for Container records.


PC updates	Charlotte Whitt	2024-06-13 Product Council Agenda and Meeting Notes The PC reviewed actionable items from the survey done last year on Things that could be better in FOLIO.
BELA (Bulk Edit and Lists App)	Jennifer Eustis	https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/eIVDDw The working group got an update on the Lists App and new fields that have been added for creating lists for Instances, Holdings, Items, Organizations, and purchase orders.
Data Import Working Group	Jennifer Eustis	No meeting. Next meeting is July 26, 2024.
quickMARC Subgroup update	Raegan Wiechert	All meetings cancelled for June and July

🧑‍💻 Chat

11:32:00 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I'm here
11:32:18 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "I'm here" with 🙏
11:32:59 From Alissa Hafele to Everyone:
Reacted to "I'm here" with 🙏
11:33:28 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Felix, I will be happy to help with the WOLFCon meeting Zoom
11:33:57 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Thanks!
11:35:10 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Is there a list somewhere of all of the accepted proposals?
11:35:13 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Titles and presenters for the workshops can be seen here too, https://openlibraryfoundation.org/about/wolfcon/upcoming/.
11:42:44 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "Titles and presenter..." with 👍
11:42:47 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "Felix, I will be hap..." with 👍
11:42:53 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "Titles and presenter..." with 👍
11:43:44 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
No that’s not correct
11:44:25 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
My assumption is that when we load MARC bibs for e-resources it's because we want them integrated with non-e resources in our discovery environment.
11:44:35 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
Reacted to "My assumption is tha..." with 💯
11:44:36 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "My assumption is tha..." with 💯
11:44:36 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "My assumption is tha..." with 💯
11:44:37 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "My assumption is tha..." with 💯
11:44:37 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Reacted to "My assumption is tha..." with 💯
11:45:44 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
so if we don't load records, we need to find another way get the full descriptions indexed for discovery

11:46:07 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
I have to admit I’m surprised that the way to do this is to load via Folio

11:46:13 From Alissa Hafele to Everyone:
Reacted to "so if we don't load ..." with 💯
11:46:15 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
But I accept that this is what happens

11:47:20 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
SFX used to support a ‘export enhanced with MARC’ for this purpose but I suspect that worked for journals and not books?

11:47:32 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
I think its the tension between the easy of making things discoverable via discovery tools/central indexes/kbs versus expecting the richness of full MARC records

11:47:35 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
I think for me I don’t fully understand what the link to agreements is for but I am operating very much from the inventory side… we get our records from ebsco and they have identifiers that match up with eholdings and we can use that to display TOU
11:47:51 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
I agree with Laura, but there are so many other reasons. We would like richer bibliographic description for our resources, we need to manage access to similar resources across packages, there is no representation for a package in knowledgebase. We also need to report at the title level on these resources collectively with our other collections. Then there is donor management for these resources. There are so many reasons to want inventory records.
11:48:09 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "I agree with Laura, ..." with 💯
11:48:34 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "I agree with Laura, ..." with 💯
11:48:35 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Replying to "My assumption is tha..."

Code Block
KB records are usually not robust enough to support our discovery use cases and eresources end up being less discoverable than other resources with more full cataloging.

11:48:57 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I want to be able to manage e-books that we own in parallel with print books in many ways, because they are part of an integrated collection
11:49:16 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "I want to be able to..." with 💯
11:49:21 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Removed a 💯 reaction from "I agree with Laura, ..."
11:49:23 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "I want to be able to..." with 💯
11:50:07 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
Thanks Owen!
11:50:46 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
thats where the link with POLS is at
11:50:53 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
In some cases too the inventory records become our source of truth for what titles we have in a package since we can control that in a way that we cannot control the packages in KBs.
11:51:03 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "In some cases too th..." with 💯
11:51:16 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Charlotte will join in 10 minutes
11:52:35 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I want to say, I do have many concerns about using MARC bibliographic fields to facilitate e-resource management, because it doesn't translate well to non-MARC formats, but I also can imagine, e.g., the 035/9 becoming an instance administrative element.
11:52:50 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
What is the use case for full subscribed e-journal MARC records in Inventory when the granular aspect being sought/discovered is articles?
11:52:54 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Ever have the ability to have additional knowledge bases such as OCLC's or creating our own local ones
11:53:03 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Sorry, I cannot speak, but would it make sense to demo GOKb and Agreements dataflows in a future meeting just to generally show options for e-resources?
11:53:13 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "Sorry, I cannot spea..." with 👍🏻
11:53:18 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "Sorry, I cannot spea..." with 👍🏻
11:53:32 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "What is the use case..."

Code Block
I consider e-journals very different from e-books because our users are more likely to be searching for articles

11:53:41 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Replying to "Ever have the abilit..."

Code Block
THis would require OCLC releasing KB api points similar to how HoldingsIQ is done for HLM

11:53:45 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "Sorry, I cannot spea..." with 👍🏻
11:54:31 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Replying to "What is the use case..."

Code Block
Agreed. I think we need to be specific about ebooks versus subscribed journals/databases

11:54:39 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
One of the big advantages of having this via a marc field as I understand it is that you can include in data import
11:54:41 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "What is the use case..."

Code Block
but I do still want users to find the journal titles in our catalog alongside print journal titles

11:54:46 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Replying to "What is the use case..."

Code Block

We use the journal level as grouping element for the articles, so the user can navigate from an article in the discovery system back to the journal and then to other articles. They can do this at the provider platform as well, tho.

11:54:53 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
We also use collection names in the 710
11:54:53 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Which is key for mass/batch management of records
11:55:03 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "but I do still want ..." with 👍
11:55:49 From Jessica Harris to Everyone:
+1 Christie
11:56:07 From Marmot User Services to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 Christie" with ➕
11:56:11 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 Christie" with ➕
11:56:12 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 Christie" with ➕
11:56:16 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 Christie" with 💯
11:56:30 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
+1 for the container record Christie
11:57:19 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 for the container..." with ➕
11:57:45 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Containers were tried to be solved by package POLs, I think
11:57:46 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
It lets you pull it up from the MARC to the admin level
11:58:43 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "Containers were trie..."

Code Block
That's my understanding as well, but it's possible the package POLs are not actually addressing all the use cases?

11:59:02 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "It lets you pull it ..." with 💯
11:59:06 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Replying to "Containers were trie..."

Code Block
We use it mostly for standing print orders

11:59:25 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Replying to "Containers were trie…"
We had some follow-up discussions in AI SIG recently - I will share the links and summary in Slack when back at keyboard
11:59:38 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "We had some follow-u..." with 🙏
11:59:41 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Replying to "Containers were trie…"
But you will be right @Laura Daniels
11:59:50 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
But not everyone can use eholdings.
12:00:28 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
are we duplicating the data or are we allowing the option to record it in either/both?
12:00:38 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "are we duplicating t..." with 💯
12:00:52 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Replying to "But not everyone can..."

Code Block
but everyone can use the other ERM apps, maybe thats where the connection needs to be at

12:00:56 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "are we duplicating t..."

Code Block
I do truly appreciate Owen's concern though

12:01:14 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "But not everyone can..."

Code Block
The local KB is available to all users

12:01:25 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
But like an item record isn’t the same as an instance record like an eholding isn’t the same as an instance
12:01:29 From Jenn Colt to Everyone:
+1 christie
12:01:44 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "But like an item rec..." with 👍
12:01:50 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
I agree with that Christie - and I definitely acknowledge that difference in purpose
12:02:14 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
For e-resources there seems to be an inherent tension between managing access and facilitating discovery
12:02:45 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Replying to "For e-resources ther..."

Code Block
and managing the quality of the metadata so that these eresources display correctly to users

12:02:49 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
We do have a bib record in our union catalog describing the package that will be mapped to an Instance record at the moment. It is not directly linked to the single titles contained in this package, but the use the same ISIL identifier.
12:02:53 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "For e-resources ther..."

Code Block
I don’t know if that tension is inherent but it is certainly there as a result of how the different systems have been brought up over time

12:02:55 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "and managing the qua..." with ➕
12:03:03 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "and managing the qua..." with ➕
12:04:02 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "and managing the qua..." with ➕
12:04:04 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Replying to "are we duplicating t..."

Code Block
I think it’s the “both” that is the most challenging

12:05:53 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Alma also has the ecollection
12:07:06 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Replying to "Alma also has the ec..."

Code Block
This!

12:07:46 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
A lot of libraries don't create items for their e-resources, so assuming not the item.
12:07:55 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with ➕
12:07:57 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with ➕
12:07:58 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with ➕
12:08:20 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d…" with 👍
12:08:29 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with 👍
12:08:56 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with ➕
12:09:30 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Reacted to "A lot of libraries d..." with ➕
12:09:42 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
And there needs to be an easy way to get reports of these records that are linked to each other.
12:10:30 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
I think its important that whatever solution we come up, doesn't change the existing ERM app workflows enough to make them require teh large Data Import/Data export batching that is required for the bib description side of things
12:10:58 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
So that libraries that dont have the staffing or the time to do batching like that dont feel compelled to do it
12:11:13 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
We also have the use case of wanting to know if we have bibliographic description for a collection or not. Or for all titles in a collection. This helps us manage our metadata work.
12:11:55 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
I absolutely recognise and acknowledge that use case Jennifer - I think this is at the heart of this need to link things together
12:12:08 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "We also have the use..." with 👍
12:12:16 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
There more I listen to the use cases, I am thinking more about the container records. Especially since the container records resolve use cases that are not eresources.
12:12:19 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "We also have the use..." with 👍
12:13:26 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Replying to "We also have the use..."

Code Block

Yes, that is one of our ideas at my library as well: Use the KBART records to check on what we've purchased and then throw it again the MARC metadata we get from the publisher/vendor to see if it is complete.

12:13:39 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Replying to "We also have the use..."

Code Block
*against

12:14:47 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Reacted to "Yes, that is one of ..." with ➕
12:15:37 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Replying to "There more I listen ..."

Code Block

I agree. There are resources that we need to manage as a set and that we track with additional administrative data and this set might be linked to a POL (s) and/or agreement or a license etc depending on the resource

12:15:52 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
I think there is a lot of variety in how libraries utilize Agreements versus Agreement Lines for representing content granularity in the the ERM apps
12:20:02 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
We discussed Container records at the very first WOLFCon in 2017!
12:20:17 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
maybe it was 2018
12:20:19 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
I think the need to be able to link between Inv and ERM apps is 100% clear
12:20:27 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think the need to ..." with ➕
12:20:29 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think the need to …" with ➕
12:20:32 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think the need to ..." with ➕
12:21:58 From Zorian Sasyk | EBSCO FOLIO Implementation to Everyone:
Can SMEs include ERM folks?
12:22:00 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I think there are already documents with use cases for the Inventory/ERM link
12:22:05 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "Can SMEs include ERM..." with 💯
12:22:33 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
and there is an old but extensive list of Container use cases that we could revisit if needed
12:22:42 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think there are al..." with 👍
12:22:46 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
I will look everything up from AI SIG and send in Slack
12:22:51 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think there are al…" with 👍
12:22:56 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "I will look everythi..." with 👍🏻
12:23:25 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Reacted to "I will look everythi..." with 👍🏻
12:24:16 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I agree with Owen, that we should consider the linking from Inventory to ERM apps separately from the need for Container records.
12:24:22 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Reacted to "I agree with Owen, t…" with 👍
12:24:26 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "I agree with Owen, t..." with 👍
12:24:26 From Martina Schildt to Everyone:
Thanks all, I am at a workshop and need to run now.
12:24:31 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "I agree with Owen, t..."

Code Block
but not lose sight of the container use cases

12:30:19 From Owen Stephens to Everyone:
Reacted to "but not lose sight o..." with 💯
12:30:26 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "I agree with Owen, t..." with 👍

Versions Compared

Old Version 2

New Version Current

Key

✍️ Note taker

🧑‍💻 Chat