Page Comparison

Andi Bihler

Project updates

The Reporting SIG is using small working groups to address priorities and complete our work.  Each week, we will provide updates to the Reporting SIG from these various reporting-related groups and efforts. Please include updates on specific JIRA issues for prototype or query development workflow. Do we need to create any additional JIRA tickets?

Community & Coordination: 

• no meeting this week
• met with leads of working groups

Development:

• working on getting Microsoft Access to work for Postgres version of LDP; error on ways tables connect to one another (UUDs are too long for Access to handle); Access only connects tables on integers; Nassib programmed in dummy tables as integer identifiers to make this work ("sk" surrogate key) makes the Access Visual SQL Editor work
• Access does not connect to RedShift
• may need to be some parallel work for institutions requiring Access
• Postgres is less expensive to host than RedShift
• Many requests for diagrammatic representation of LDP; Schema Spy has visual representation of tables at https://glintcore.net:8443/ldp/schemaspy/public/relationships.html
• Finalized style of ReadMes Readmes for LDP Analytics on GitHub; example at: https://github.com/folio-org/ldp-analytics/tree/master/sql/circ_detail

Tools to Consider

• Dbeaver Enterprise has worked well for Eliana Eliana (not free)
• Metabase (free and not free)
• LibreOffice Base ? (free)
• Aqua Data Studio (not free)
• Crystal Reports (not free)

RA/UM Working Group: 

• 4 prototypes currently underway

MM Working Group:

RM Working Group: 

• for latest updates, see RM Prototype and Query Development Status

ERM Working Group:

• for latest updates, see ERM Prototype and Query Development Status

We'll discuss options and recommendations for integrating Interlibrary Loan (ILL) into your library system, with a focus on how that impacts developing queries for reports.

• ReShare presented in Consortia by Kristen Wilson. Currently using NCIP protocol, has potential to be used between FOLIO libraries for intraconsortial borrowing. Plans to have its own LDP for reporting in the future. It is more designed to be the handshake between systems, rather than extensive reach within FOLIO. Discovery layer independent/agnostic - currently working with VuFind. Identifying NCIP record creation and editing/updating may be a way that several libraries will be able to track ILL activity within FOLIO.
• Several institutions responded to Elena's questions about what ILL means to their institution (how they currently manage ILL).  A compilation of all responses (ILL_discussion_notes.pdf) has been attached to all the ILL REP issues, so that report writers can refer to them while developing queries. Almost all institutions manage ILL somewhat differently, but a common feature is the use of an outside system for ILL such as OCLC or ILLiad, at times a linkage to the home system, and the creation of a dummy or psuedu-patron account/marker that links to the item loaned out from the home library, so that it shows as checked out. In some cases, this is also created for items borrowed (Chicago creates bib and item records for borrowed items). A lot of the annual statistics are generated from the external system. For FOLIO reporting, ILL counts will depend on each institution's data integration with its chosen external ILL systems. Currently, the best we can do is based on Nassib's suggestion of an 'example' university library: we assume a format of data integration, and write a query based on that format. For example, we assume that institutions will create a pseudo-borrower code that is linked to FOLIO, so that the patron record will reflect that it is an ILL loan, and we will base ILL reporting on this configuration. As institutions go live with FOLIO, they can customize their queries for ILL.