Versions Compared

Version Old Version 3 New Version Current
Changes made by

Khalilah Gambrell

Khalilah Gambrell

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Details: We need your help to finalize manually linking bib field

...

to authority record requirements. These scenarios focus on create/derive/edit bib record interactions. Please

  1. Review each Scenario and Outcome Option
  2. In Outcome selection, please prepend your initials to your outcome selection option 
  3. In Comments column, please prepend your initials to your comment

NOTE: All linked bib fields will have a $0 populated and will be read-only on the UI. The $0 will populate a URI that includes the Authority record 010$a or 001 as a unique identifier. A MARC bib field's $0 will serve as a match point. 

Scenarios

#ScenarioOutcome OptionOutcome selectionComments
1Create new MARC bib record via data import app

A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.

B.

Something

  I expect something else. 

JAC- B

JE: B

JAC- Would want to run some sort of authority matching process with $0, but would prefer authority control process is not linked to data import. 

JE: I'd like to see sort of utility where institutions can set what they want to do and when.

2Create new MARC bib record via single record import functionality 

A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.

B.

Something else

I expect something else. 

JAC- B

JE: B

JAC- Same as above. Would want linking process to happen separately from record creation. 
3Derive a new MARC bib record via quickMARC
AND
from a bib record
has
with linked authorities

A. Allow a user to decide to keep links or remove them ONCE user hits the Derive a new MARC bib record action

B. Always preserve linking

C. Never preserve linking

B

D.

Something

I expect something else. 

JAC- A

JE: A

JB: A 

CT: A

JAC-Would be good if there could be a user preference that lets you choose either A or C as a default setting.

4

Overlay a MARC bib record with fields linked to authority records.

  1. A MARC bib record has several bib field(s) linked to authority records
  2. Then user overlays the MARC bib record via single record import 

Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

A. Very common

B. Occasional

C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  



Question 2: What is your preferred outcome? 

A. Allow user to decide whether to keep links (if possible) OR unlink when the user takes the action to overlay record. 

B. Always preserve linking 

C. Never preserve linking. 

D. I expect something else.


Comment - Mixed based on the presence of $0 

Question 1


JAC-B

JE: B


Question 2


JAC-D

JE: D







JAC- If the overlay changes the authorized access points in the bib, never preserve linking (for those access points). If there is no change to authorized access points in the bib, preserve linking for those access points (this is a little different than being asked to link all or unlink all).


JE: In some respects, I would like the overlay to preceed where all is unlinked and then the overlay links.

5

Update bib record via data import with NO change to the linked bib field

  1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
  2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
    1. No change to authority linked MARC 100 bib field
      1. Indicators
      2. Controlled  values
      3. Uncontrolled values
    2. Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file
No action required 

A. No change thus no impact to linking. (also applies to repeated fields)

B. I expect something else. 

JAC-A

JE: A


6

Update bib record via data import with A Change to linked bib field value(s) NOT controlled by authority

  1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
  2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
    1. A linked
700
    1. 100 field has a change to uncontrolled $e. For example update $e from author to $e author $e narrator
    2. No change to controlled values 
    3. No change to indicators  
Assume multiple 700s exist in file 
    2. Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file

A. No impact to linking. (also applies to repeated fields) 

B. I expect something else.   

JAC-A

JE: A


7

Update bib record via data import

With

with a Change to a linked bib field value Controlled by authority

  1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
  2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
    Linked MARC bib 700 field has a
        1. change to
    $a File import has
        1. Linked MARC bib
    700
        1. 100 field $a  Angeloo, Maya BUT
    the MARC bib 700
        1. is linked to authority record 100 $a Angelou, Maya 
    Assume multiple 700s exist in file. 

    Update bib record via data import AND linked bib field has no $0 AND no other changes 

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      1. Linked MARC 700 bib field does not include $0 in the file.
      2. No other changes made to the linked MARC bib field 

    Update bib record via data import AND linked bib field has no $0 AND changes to uncontrolled values

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      1. Linked MARC 700 bib field does not include $0 in the file.
      2. Has changes to uncontrolled value(s)

    Update bib record via data import AND linked bib field has no $0 AND changes to controlled values

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      1. Linked MARC 700 bib field does not include $0 in the file.
      2. Has changes to controlled value(s)
    Update bib record via DI
      2. Assume that the matched $0 is included in the import file

    NR (ex. 100): This field does not get updated BUT there is some indication as to why the field was not updated and it can potentially be via

    R: (ex 700 - some of the 700s change) -  

    a.) DI job log report 

    b.) Separate - in-app report 

    The report should include

    • Instance/HRID with link to the record
    • Linked MARC field number that was not updated 
    • Date/time stamp of the update
    • Reason the Linked MARC field number was not update. 
      • Controlled field value does not match
      • Missing $0 
      • Changed $0 
      • possibly missing $9?
    • Data import job ID? 

    Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

    A. Very common

    B. Occasional

    C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  


    Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

    A. Do not update the field. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record.  FOLIO provides a report when a user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

    B1. Proceed with update. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that  update conflicts with linked authority record. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-correct to accurate values when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for use to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

    B2. Proceed with update and we can remove the link ($9 Authority UUID) and provide a report that we removed it. 

    B3. Proceed with update and we can remove the link ($9 Authority UUID) and provide no report 

    B4. Check $0 value and decide whether to update (no report)

    C. I expect something else 

    Question 1

    JAC-B

    JE: B




    Question 2


    JAC-A

    JE: C







    JAC-  Would not want for data import, but would want quickMARC to auto-correct  to accurate value if typo occurs in in quickMARC.


    JE: I think having some sort of utility where you can look at the report and then take action on it -auto correct, manually correct, or something else.

    8

    Update bib record via data import AND Linked bib field has a different $0

    value in an import file to be updated. 

    value  

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      1. Linked MARC 100 bib field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349). No other change made
    to 100Assume that $9 is not included in the import file
      1. this field

    Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

    A. Very common. We do not maintain $0. 

    B. Occasional

    C. Very rarely happens. We maintain $0. Definitely edge case.  


    Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

    A. Proceed with update. Bib field remains controlled (linked to an authority record). FOLIO provides a report when a linked bib field has a missing $0 value. And when user edits bib record via quickMARC then auto-populate $0 when user hits Save. (also applies to repeatable fields) 

    B. I expect something else 

    JAC- ?


    JE: B


    JAC -B


    JE: B

    JAC- Unsure how "We do not maintain, We maintain $0" is connected to the frequency of scenario?



    JAC- B, we would expect it to update $0 and unlink from previous $0.


    JE: It would be great to have the option when to run an update.

    9

    Update bib record via

    DI

    data import AND Linked bib field has a different

    $0 

    $0 or no $0 and change to a controlled value

    in an import file to be updated

    . 

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      1. Linked MARC bib 100 field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349)
    .Update bib record via DI and the bib field number is repeatable one of the bib field rows has been updated
      1. OR no $0 at all 
      2. And subfield $d has changed from 1900 - 1998 to 1900 - 2000 
  3. Assume that $9 is not included in the import file
    4. Includes

    Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

    A. Very common that the controlled value is changed. 

    B. Occasional

    C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  


    Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

    A. Do not update the field. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record.  FOLIO provides a report when a user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

    B. Proceed with update of $0 and $d. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that the $d and $0 updates conflict and should be manually reviewed. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-correct to accurate values when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for user to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

    C. I expect something else 

    Question 1

    JAC-B

    JE: ?



    Question 2


    JAC-B


    JE: C








    JE: I feel that institutions should be able to schedule this and perhaps even the types of updates that take place.

    10

    Update bib record via data import AND Linked bib field has a different $0 or no $0 and change to a uncontrolled value. 

    1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
    2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
      There are several 700 fields that are linked and some of are unlinked. One of the linked 700
        1. Linked MARC bib 100 field includes a $0 but the value stored  (ex. no234556) is not the same as what is in the import (ex. no234349)
      .
    3. Another linked 700 
      1. Has subfield $d has changed from 1900 - 1998 to 1900 - 2000 
    4. A non-linked 700 has a change 
    5. Assume that $9 is not included in the import file

      6. Update bib record via DI and the bib field number is repeatable one of the bib field rows has been updated. (Has no $0) 

      1. User updates a linked bib record via data import.
      2. The import file contains a bib record with a  
        1. There are several 700 fields that are linked and some of are unlinked. One of the linked 700
          1. Has no $0 
        2. Assume that $9 is not included in the import file
      Edit a MARC bib record (linked to an authority record) via quickMARC
      • Cannot edit linked MARC bib fields
      Create new MARC authority record (in batch) No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.Edit MARC authority record via quickMARC
      • If linked to a bib record AND authority 1XX OR 010$a has been updated then update all linked bib records with changed value(s). 
      • Bib updates should happen in a separate process.
      • See below on options on how to communicate status/updates to users.  
      • Consider that multiple updates can happen concurrently. 

      Question(s): Expected time frame for changes to flow to all linked bib records. 

      Talk with Ann-Marie and Magda regarding statuses. 
      PS: expected time depends on amount of records and SRS and Inventory load in moment of update (for example a huge data-import is in progress). 

      KG: Which service/module will handle the bib updates?

      Edit MARC authority records (in batch - DI)
      • If authority 1XX or 010$a has been updated then update all linked bib records with changed value(s). 
      • Bib updates should happen in a separate process not as a part of MARC authority updates via data import. 
        • Once data import job is complete then a process should begin to update bib records 
        • Options to communicate to cataloging staff that updates are complete
          • Possibly use Bulk-edit? Or Bulk-edit + schedule option?
          • OR Create a log page that provides a query to all bib records updated based on authority record updates via MARC authority? Or dashboard widget that list log/jobs and current status to complete updates? 
      • Consider that multiple updates can happen concurrently. 

      Question(s): Expected time frame for changes to flow to all linked bib records. 

      " " 

      KG: Any thoughts on Options to communicate to cataloging staff that updates are complete?

      KG: Which service/module will handle the bib updates?

      Delete MARC authority record via quickMARC
    6. Allow for deletion to proceed 
    7. Ask user to confirm that they want to delete the authority record. Ensure they understand impact of unlinking these records by providing # of records to be unlinked. 
      8. Linked bib fields are no longer linked. No change to any bib subfield values.... only change is these fields can be edited. 
        1. OR no $0 at all 
        2. And subfield $e has changed from  $e author to $e author $e narrator

      Question 1: How common is this scenario? 

      A. Very common that the controlled value is changed. 

      B. Occasional

      C. Very rarely happens. Definitely edge case.  


      Question 2: What is your preferred outcome for this scenario?

      A. Do not update the field due to the wrong $0. Flag the reason why as this record is controlled by an authority record.  FOLIO provides a report when a user attempts to edit controlled values. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

      B. Proceed with update of $0 and $e. FOLIO provides a report that informs user that the $0 update conflicts and should be manually reviewed. If user edits bib record via quickMARC then system can auto-correct to accurate value when user hits Save. A message/indicator can display for user to unlink authority record or allow for quickMARC to auto-correct. (Applies to repeatable fields too) 

      C. I expect something else 

      Question 1


      JAC-B

      JE: ?


      Question 2


      JAC-B







      JAC-We want to update the data we are bringing in; we don't always want authorities app to be doing field protection for us, and when we do we want to turn it off and on.

      11Data field protection handling (need to write a scenario)


      12Is there a scenario where data import should reject updating the entire bib record due to authority linking errors?  Please post your scenario under Comments section. 

      JAC- NO


      JE: No

      Data import should let us upload what we want to, even if the records are poor.


      JE: Linking errors should be reporting in a separate report to look at and resolve separately.