Date
Attendees
Goals
- Prioritize post CAP MVP open inventory features
Discussion items
Item | Who | Notes - in |
---|---|---|
Open Inventory Issues | Christie Thomas / Charlotte Whitt | Prioritize post CAP-MVP features for development (when CAP-MVP work is complete) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c2EygYIdOCcKIiKSJpRF8stmWy7JAl3m/edit#gid=1714726149
|
FOLIO Implementer's proposal for a panel on MARC and the catalog | Christie Thomas / Charlotte Whitt | Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ozUSJT7hpTDJnk2_0NWPofR-tq0__HrOBXJ7b9VyNzk/edit Recording of the FOLIO Implementers discussion: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ur9216_s29LGBTEd8L2NRf-ITDI_2O6U (The discussion begins about 5 minutes in.) Jacquie - Do we need a separate storage for MARC holdings - apart from SRS? Can we have multiple types of MARC in Source Record Storage? Christie - Maybe the prefix identifier would be enough information for FOLIO to store MARC Holdings. Ann-Marie - If we need MARC Holdings storage, we'll have it, but the bigger question is, is there some movement for some libraries to not have MARC Holdings? Charlotte - This is intentionally optional - libraries should be able to choose whether or not they want to have MARC Holdings. Charlotte recommends listening to the recording above to get the context of the issue. Tiziana - Is confused as to why this is on the agenda, thinking this issue has been settled - some libraries need MARC holdings, some don't. Ann-Marie - This is true - the question is, will some libraries that are migrating to FOLIO want to take this as an opportunity to drop MARC Holdings? Jason - Functional requirements for sharing MARC bibs is different from sharing MARC holdings. Jason would like this to be a practical discussion as to what use cases MARC Holdings is the only suitable option for (if any). Why must some libraries keep MFHDs? What do we all need to consider, especially those considering dropping MARC Holdings? What may be missed? |