Versions Compared

Key

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

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://zoom.us/j/527543204. The meeting password can be found here.

...

Discussion items

Announcements


Linked Open Data in FOLIO subgroup meeting later today (7pm Eastern Time)

Documentation group is looking for someone to take over tenant/settings area – if anyone is interested get in touch with either Laurence Mini or Amanda Ross

Jana Freytag – reminder that Bugfest starts soon and the kick-off is tomorrow (3/22/2024)

Discussion of the 3 part item state continued

Joint meeting with RA SIG as continuation from 2024-02-08 Metadata Management Meeting notes

T. Trutt (TT) - Sharing of mockups 

Image Added

Tried to figure out a way that half of functionality belong to Inventory, half to circulation

Circ Rules - instead of having the three different parts, he suggests just having the item Process

Phase 1 – Get Process field created in Inventory

Phase 2 – add a checklist capability to a Process (e.g. pull from stacks, check for missing pages, etc) 

Processes can be reordered  – processes automatically added as checklist items

Phase 3 – Allow user to change an item status with the fulfilment of process, adding a ranking layer so systems could balance multiple processes (figure out priority automatically)

Processes would live in Inventory and not effect Circulation

Questions:

D.Bottorff - Not understanding how this would not effect Circulation?

TT: This would not effect check in/check out; the Process part is just describing what is happening to the item, everything else is handled by the actual item States

C. Malmborg: Sounds like the Process setting in the first Phase is telling you what you want to do with the item which means you may have to put a request on the item, or change the item status in Inventory.  Just wondering if it is actually worth starting at Phase 1 and installing as a change to the system or if you want to wait until Phase 2 before putting in a change to Folio?

TT: That is a possibility to combine Phase 1 and 2 (was thinking Phase 1 would be a quick way to get Bindery needs in place)

D.Bottorff: Regarding Bindery-- seems like a very manual way of dealing with sending things to Bindery when you could just wand in a bunch of barcodes to send things off to Bindery.  Afraid this won't get used and doesn't want development time going into something that doesn't get used.

TT: If you are in another part of the system you could add these processes as well (not just bindery use case)

C. Malmborg: If there isn't something in the system that isn't deleting the processes somehow then you will have a lot of old data that needs clean up.

TT: Once a process is completed should it be stored on the record for later reference, should it be held for two years and then deleted?  The other part of this was the Item statuses and reworking how they work:

Right now statuses are a drop down, would suggest those being a modal; at the same time add a settings page that have the built in status that allows you to change the display names so that no internal workings of Folio are affected.  However, item statuses would be decoupled from the circ logic and would become a descriptor on the item.  Instead of being hardcoded they would become a filter in the circ rules.  Do you want some of these hardcoded or do they just become circ rules?  Item statuses would remain metadata on the item but the policies would live on the circ side.  

David: Where would figure out if status is "loaned" you cannot change item status except thru circ processes.  

TT: Could see that as two separate policies–a policy in circ or in Inventory, checked out, lost, etc. still remain protected and can only be changed thru a certain process.  

C. Malmborg: If you start considering custom item statuses which we really want, it makes sense to make them a filter in the circ rules.  So probably need some statuses that generate error if it has a circ rule.  Seems like a big architectural change.

M. .Canney: Any consideration to building in notifications into the process (if process requires hand off from one unit to another for example)

TT: Could see that as a possibility.  Also, some people would not use any of the internal processes checklist but would prefer the external workflows app.  It might be one of those things where if you need this much complexity you might need to use the external workflows app.  

Item states and Process states are two different lists. 

D. Bottorff: Item is loaned, you need to route it for cataloging review. How does it trigger complicated scenarios?

TT: Request app would use the item states to process requests; other possibility: a request always trumps any other process.  Phase 3 of process: route to this location – add to checklist in appropriate order.

D. Bottorff: Seems like this only becomes useful in Phase 3.  So, is this really worth separating into Phases?  

TT: Was breaking into Phases considering Dev time and spreading out into multiple flower releases.

F. Hemme: Are the checklists stored on the item record in Inventory as well?

TT: Yes, in the tenant settings as a template and so template is stored either in the item or separately.

Will the item state values still be text or are you also proposing to change them to reference data with UUID's instead? 

TT: Right now item states are text (a key); customs could be stored in a database with UUID but would want to talk to Devs about best approach.

D. Bottorff: Thinking about custom item states: is it worth exploring middle ground all aspects--set of checkboxes within an item states when you create it–hardcoded checks could be there and then there could be other states like loan that are not editable (can this be manually changed: yes/no).  Provide flexibility and put less pressure on circ rules.

TT: With the custom item states as you move along you need to be able to delete things but you don't want anyone to delete certain states. My worry is with going to that extent you are duplicating the circ rules anyway but I realize there are certain thing where you don't want the circ rules to override basic rules that will break the system.  Allowing lost item state in circ rules and allowing you to place a request on them but only by certain groups.  Ensuring nothing breaks but also allowing more flexibility.

C. Malmborg: If you had to put the item states in the circ rules how difficult it might make it for people to write their circ rules.  Maybe something like a hybrid circ rules–if you don't put in an item state there would be a default but then if you put in an item status that could be added to the default set so that your ex of putting a hold on a lost item could be added to the logic.  This will require a lot more thought.

L. Fors: Would this be discoverable in the Lists App? Or some other reporting method on where an item is in a process?

TT: I don't see a reason why the list app would not be able to recognize these.  Could result in a lot of breaking changes.

C. Whitt: What is the time frame for introducing this new work? 

TT: This will likely be pushed out 2025/2026 when Dev teams are not in as much of a time crunch.  Open to suggestion of how to expose this more.  

C.Bottorff: Would probably also need dates of Processes (ex. these things got sent to the bindery last month, they should be back by now).  Could other Apps leverage this data (like the Bindery App)?

TT: Yes, ensuring that the data is there and easily accessible from other Apps is great, and having a way to search directly from Inventory is a necessity.

C.Witt: LDP and MetaDB, it is not set in stone that not everyone can have it–just ask your hosting provider and it can be temporary until the List App is available.





PC updatesCharlotte Whitt

Todays PC meeting will be the first meeting with a different time, more friendly to FOLIO folks in the Asia Pacific region! Instead of the usual 10am ET timeslot, the meeting will be at 8pm ET. The main topic is an Application Formalization overview from Tod Olsen and Jenn Colt of the FOLIO Tech Council. Here is the agenda: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PC/pages/103940186/2024-03-21+Product+Council+Meeting+Notes+8pm+ET+quarterly+Asia+Pacific+Friendly+time

BELA (Bulk Edit and Lists App)

Jennifer Eustis

2024-03-19 BELA Meeting Notes. Call for UA testing!

Please test scenarios! End April 2.

  • Test environment: https://folio-snapshot.dev.folio.org/
  • Test user: bulk-edit / bulk-edit

    • Suppress from discovery
    • Staff suppress
    • Suppress from discovery and staff suppress
    • Electronic access fields
Data Import Working Group

Jennifer Eustis

2024-3-20 Data Import Subgroup meeting. The working group had a discussion on what it means to mark an instance for deletion. You can see the initial development on FOLIO snapshot. The working group is gather in one place functionality and comments in this spreadsheet.
quickMARCNeeds a ReporterNo meeting this week

Chat:

10:32:13 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
I was almost late because of the time change in the US...
10:32:38 From Jana Freytag to Everyone:
Reacted to "I was almost late be..." with 💯
10:32:43 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
I fear that is not small ;)
10:32:57 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "I fear that is not s..." with 😆
10:35:06 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Thanks for doing the documentation work until now!
10:35:16 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
the documentation work is heroic, thanks to everyone who contributes
10:37:19 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
mock ups are always useful
10:51:50 From David Bottorff (UChicago) to Everyone:
You'd want reporting or the ability to view all items in a given process as well, I'd think
10:52:18 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
ideally, we would have the ability for each tenant to configure how long each process is kept/when it gets wiped
10:54:20 From Thomas Trutt to Everyone:
Reacted to "ideally, we would ha..." with 👍🏻
11:02:43 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
I might have missed it: Are the checklists stored on the item record in Inventory as well?
11:03:23 From Felix Hemme to Everyone:
Other question: Will the item state values still be text or are you also proposing to change them to reference data with UUID's instead?
11:04:31 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "Other question: Will..." with 👆
11:11:41 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Would this be discoverable in the Lists App? Or some other reporting method on where an item is in a process?
11:12:15 From David Bottorff (UChicago) to Everyone:
Reacted to "Would this be discov..." with 👍🏻
11:19:03 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Not everyone has LDP/Metadb so this would have to have some way of exposing this reporting need
11:19:12 From David Bottorff (UChicago) to Everyone:
Reacted to "Not everyone has LDP..." with 👍🏻
11:19:15 From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone:
What is the time frame for introducing this new work?
11:21:08 From Stephanie Kaceli, Cairn University to Everyone:
Reacted to "Not everyone has LDP..." with 👍🏻
11:21:11 From Stephanie Kaceli, Cairn University to Everyone:
Reacted to "Would this be discov..." with 👍🏻
11:25:24 From Jamie Jesanis (they/them) to Everyone:
LDP/Metadb is technically available for everyone but likely cost-prohibitive for those who don't already have it
11:25:40 From Thomas Trutt to Everyone:
Reacted to "LDP/Metadb is techni..." with 👍🏻
11:25:47 From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone:
Reacted to "LDP/Metadb is techni..." with ❓

11:26:36 From Amelia Sutton to Everyone:

Reacted to "LDP/Metadb is techni..." with 👆

11:26:50 From Thomas Trutt to Everyone:

100%

11:27:26 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:

The PC meeting is right after the Linked Open Data meeting!

11:28:30 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:

I don't see her.

11:28:39 From Amelia Sutton to Everyone:

I believe she is in another meeting atm

11:29:34 From Jana Freytag to Everyone:

Bye everyone, thank you @Thomas Trutt

11:30:01 From Thomas Trutt to Everyone:

Reacted to "Bye everyone, thank ..." with 🙏🏻

11:30:15 From f-piscitelli to Everyone:

Thank you.

11:30:16 From Jamie Jesanis (they/them) to Everyone:

Replying to "LDP/Metadb is techni..."


It depends on what an institution can negotiate, but may cost extra through the hosting provider or through hiring/reallocating resources for someone to manage it locally.