Attendees:
WORK-in-PROGRESS
Agenda:Agenda:
- New request to join group
- Next step for work areas
- on hold. Wayne is planning to work on this today and tomorrow
- For Authority Management (see: Authority Management - current practice)
- Questions to address:
- What from workflows should we continue?
- Where are gaps in current workflows?
- Should there be one workflow? Many workflows?
- What from workflows is FOLIO-relevant / should be added to FOLIO JIRA?
- What from workflows should remain external to FOLIO/ILS?
- So much is institutionally aligned based on staffing models, expectations of local effort versus outsourcing; etc..
- Define guiding principles!
- In broad strokes, there are only a few different methods of authority control
- data within tool (manage auth records) OR outside tool to update bib records (no manage auth records)
- do we use ILS to update bib data? Or do bib records get replaced via outside effort?
- SHARE-VDE experiences. complex areas of activity
- attempting to create bridge between traditional and future scenario
- use case document: split different areas (traditional versus future)
- how to provide authority control services for MARC
- how to manage future authority approach in entity-based model
- need to be many workflows to facilitate various scenarios
- authorities subgroup joined a subgroup working on S-VDE entity editor for clustered db
- work with data within the editor and with external sources
- how to manage wikidata data in local editor
- APIs - what is needed to facilitate all of this
- defining SHARE-VDE data model that can accommodate LRM and BIBFRAME; differs from Sinopia in that Sinopia works with entities using any kind of data model. What would be approach of FOLIO? Something specific for FOLIO ? ACTION: add this to a future meeting agenda
- Complex when thinking about entities... not just two types of nodes going between themselves but there are any number of connections needing to be maintained
- How does this interact with discovery wrt: data stored in FOLIO? Gaps question with discovery in terms of how much/little auth data we are using for discovery
- For digital collections: ability to publish vocabularies as LOD. In inventory, have reference data that is published as LOD elsewhere (e.g.: RDA data, etc.). UUIDs in FOLIO that go across all institutions; when implementation happens locally for things like content type – mint a local UUID. need to look beyond managing vocabularies internal to FOLIO and those that are managed externally and just consumed
- Generic functions/utilities that are universal:
- Need to store authority/entity data somewhere in FOLIO. needs will change based on push-to-discovery OR re-use across FOLIO... still need a place to store those data. Important for adoption
- Manage external URIs in relation to UUIDs (only if needed) universally across FOLIO instances; pref: use source URIs
- Reporting (automated) across bib data; consider how the Reporting SIG can engage with this OR is this ad-hoc.
- CRUD functions
- if we have entity management APP: what are the requirements? Do we need a diff app for each entity type? Do we have ability to define own entities for various projects (at implementation-level); how do we manage data models across the various external datasets / is there an internal data model to which we need to map (like SHARE-VDE)?
- ability to determine what/how to index and display different types of entities
- Questions to address:
Action Items:
- Tiziana will present documentation on the SAHRE-VDE use cases during next meeting
- Jason: add to outputs: list of detailed reporting functions for future MM-SIG/Reporting SIG engagement
- For future meeting: what is the approach in FOLIO wrt: data modeling
High-level items raised from 4/8 overview of current authority control practice:
- Authority management workflows (current): Authority Management - current practice
- workflows:
- authority service (weekly with MARCive for Duke) versus local effort
- new records (auth and bib) in Connexion
- MARCEdit for adding URIs to records
- review unmatched headings to then match
- embedding URI data to help disambiguate
- unicode compliance for things not in unicode
- shared authority file (ALMA for Penn)
- OCLC WorldShare profile and other query processes with import job
- Chicago has a fellow computationally comparing headings in Chicago bib records to OCLC
- preference for OCLC records over vendor records - though this is nuanced (preference is more around vendor-neutral records for eResources)
- Tooling:
- ILS
- external scripts
- access database (used for Duke process)
- LSTools (local at Cornell, https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/tsawg/Library+Services+Tools) → workflows for maintaining headings do not change authority records; create reports and act on bib records with those authorities. Depending on what is seen in global headings queue in Voyager, will feel more of less comfortable with auto-flips (flip example: name heading where death date was not originally in our data). Workflow engines being considered as among part of the solution for rebuilding for FOLIO. UXPROD-950 - Rewrite Cornell’s Web based LS-Tools
- Incorporate notes from the work areas discussion meetings. Wayne will kick off this discussion (Wayne, Jason)
- Spreadsheet to organize use cases being brainstormed into various areas of work "Use Cases/Areas of Work": https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h2qJrlPIGKKIF9GGzfgtNwgRQw7AhmAD4G23ZTCHDzg/edit?usp=sharing
- feedback request: is this what people imagined that we would do with this document?
- out of this should derive features to discuss with UI and technical design teams
...