Page Comparison

Concern about only allowing orders with EBSCO, which is not what we meant for FOLIO. EBSCO may be one of the first vendors to integrate, but encourage other vendors to integrate as well. So what does it mean to become an integrated vendor?

Is there a FOLIO-compliant vendor for vendors to follow requirements to become integrated?

• opportunity to design APIs to get away from old-fashioned file transfer
• What is motivation for vendors to become "FOLIO-compliant"?
• How can we support vendors with different levels of technical sophistication?: Large vendors interested in API connections, but can small vendors manage this?
• Can APIs be made a NISO standard? This would be a longer-term issue.
• Still deciding who the appropriate team is for developing the APIs
• Even if we don't do the APIs initially, our current work will lay the groundwork for more sophisticated coding
  • e.g., we begin with MARC 9xx and EDI, and move toward APIs
• Get the API open-source. Then vendors can grab it, and it can be used both with FOLIO and outside of FOLIO, to make it more of a  standard.

-          Harry presented the recent version of the FOLIO Development & Milestone plan (Dev plan) and explained the scope and functionality of “version 1” of FOLIO.

-          Due to Google Docs there might be errors in the document display. Refreshing the website should resolve this

-          The Dev plan is structured by different excel tabs. The important ones for the RM SIG are:

• Tab 1 “Dev Plan”: General overview about the project time frame. The color code shows if developers have been allocated to a sup project yet. The line item “Consortia” will be integrated into the other sub-projects in the next Dev plan iteration
• Tab 2 “Milestones”: A more granular project schedule. The split between Acquisitions and Resource Management for better overview
• Tab 7 “Acquisitions”: Detailed overview of all features in this sub project with prioritization. The priorities are assigned in a bottom-up approach form a programmer’s point of view. High priority items need to be implemented to start working low priority features. These priorities are represented by an empty line -> Above the line means high priority
• Tab 9 “Resource Management”

-          Version 1 of FOLIO: Version 1 is planned as an early “prove of concept” for FOLIO and should be ready between Dec17 and Apr18. This version includes all basic functionality for an institution for them to be willing to switch to FOLIO. Since the early adopter institution has not been defined yet the concept is somewhat agile and its scope will change during the upcoming months.

-          Harry plans the next iteration of the Dev plan for approx. End of August. Therefore, the RM SIG needs to provide input on the doc:

• Harry creates a survey monkey to collect feedback of the group about
  • Institutions priorities  
  • missing features in the document
  • Features the institutions needs to implement FOLIO as an early adopter
• The SIG will be notified via email when the survey is online
• Only one “vote” per institution 
  >>> ADD LINK TO SURVEY MONKEY <<<

Workflow Demo conversation and Comments

• • • See Discuss Post: https://discuss.folio.org/t/zap-workflows-ux-iteration-3-english/1041

Stacks Work Package Acquisitions workflow

• Version two is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TvAAf4TOhF5TIEVRQye8ngOoC5ftQQKaGcmEihKaEMg/edit
• Check-in with group: how's the process going? Do we feel like this is getting us where we want in the timeframe needed?
• list of the workflows, timeframe and scope that will be covered during development / SIG Meetings (Discussion outcome from last week)

-          No review of the comments on work package 2 or presentation of Work package 3. We were running out of time

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KqqCDS6hDT8im-x5g0v1_OFSHoKviwRKwvGxjaMJWsY/edit 

-          The Group shall review Work package 3 by Wednesday next week as usual. Kristin D. will talk about Stacks’ development timeframe and the different workflows in next week’s meeting.