Page Comparison

• Charlotte: Reaction of FOLIO with union catalogs Charlotte Whitt  - please elaborate - sorry I lost the thread of what you said. Example: Chalmers will need different metadata sources. How is the FOLIO metadata data flow and is the flexibility sufficient, or do things need to be redone?
• Ann-Marie (via chat): "Is there value in a general (non-SIG) session on how various parties use Inventory? Catalogers, Circ staff, Acq staff, including E or only physical? WOLFcon seems like a good opportunity to get folks from the various areas together to hear each other and understand each other's use cases more."
• Christie Thomas (via chat) "I think it is also important to revisit the requirement to make inventory a flexible display. There are a number of elements that we don't require at Chicago so would like to suppress from display. In that way we have the ability to customize our use of inventory. I am sure that is also true of others. "
• Ann-Marie - Single Record Import? Laura said that if there is something to show, it could be worked in. Felix also said a demonstration of their Union catalog to FOLIO may be possible by January, in which case they can demo the functionality.
• Aaron - Special Collections and Archives groups are looking at how FOLIO's Inventory could accommodate special fields. Jason - What is esoteric to one library community could be core data to another community. Laura - it may be good to give this topic time and space at WOLFcon. Is this the same conversation as how Inventory be used. There are people at Texas A&M from that community. Christie would like to revisit the core elements. For example, material type will not be used at Chicago, yet it is required in FOLIO. 
• Ann-Marie (via chat): "Would a session on the long-ignored Codex be worthwhile? Maybe as part of a convo on whether/why you put info in Inventory for eResources?"

Please contribute ideas: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VEVZT4U8IO9Wztx72xR2zmuLz5A-dlhvgARmdA7DvUU/edit#gid=0

Results of the Doodle poll?

Concerns?

Can all concerns be addressed through individual institutions changing their default mapping?

Data Import: The last subgroup meeting on 11/6/2019 dealt with import functions at the item level.  Filipe was present to assist in design. There has been analysis on all of the fields. 

Peter Murray will be sending a message announcing the 11/20/2019 FOLIO Forum. Data Import and Data Export Register: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_u_dAhUOAQIOIClZ698R92g

Mapping genres issue - This is a short term decision. Consider it the final "MVP" decision.  Jacquie questioned why we are not currently focusing on the appropriateness of  the fields that are or are not in Inventory at the moment. Jason added that he would like to see us coming up with guiding principles with what is displayed in Inventory.  Laura wondered if this is something we would like to discuss at WOLFcon? Christie thinks it's important to begin to shift from theory to real-life practical examples. At Chicago they are trying to shift workflows away from MARC. Christie thinks it is important to make a case for data elements. She would prefer that we not be prescriptive since different institutions will develop different workflows. Agreed that WOLFcon is a good opportunity to start talking about workflows and sharing what we have planned.

Data Export:  Last week the group had a very good meeting about mapping.

Felix (via chat): "During the creation of our mapping we often noticed that we don't necessarily want to display an element, but want to search for it. Maybe it would be possible to talk some logic like index = yes, store = no."

Ann-Marie (via chat): "Christie - yes, suppressing unused fields is a big desire from Chalmers and a number of other libraries. Maybe as part of a general UI/UX discussion with Filip and Khalilah?"