2019-3-28 Resource Access Meeting Notes

Date

28 Mar 2019

Attendees

• Andrea Loigman

• Charlotte Whitt

• Cate Boerema (Deactivated)

• Joanne Leary

• Mark Canney

• Darcy Branchini

• Joanne Leary

• Kai Sprenger

• William Weare

• Deb Lamb

• Cheryl Malmborg

• Jana Freytag

• lisa perchermeier

• sthomas (Deactivated)

• Katharina Haas

• Mary Yokubaitis

• David Larsen

• Susan Kimball
  
  

Discussion tems

Meeting Outcomes

Notes

Call numbers - Charlotte Whitt 

• Initial discussion of call numbers in holdings record. (Please reference Charlotte's slide deck.)
• Copy Number → Call Number Type → Call Number Prefix → Call Number → Call Number Suffix.
• Inventory - Holdings Metadata Elements - includes Shelving Order metadata - system generated from call number. This is not fully implemented yet in the Holdings record.
• Item record - in Item Data - Type, prefix, call number, call number suffix. (Add Copy Number)
• MMSIG has defined an element - item level shelving order - system supplied, based on call number - also not yet fully implemented.
• Settings → Inventory – where you would go to define relevant call number types for your library. Note - it is very typical for libraries to have multiple types of call numbers. She is displaying a default list, and then the library can delete ones that are not needed.

Jiras - there are a lot of requests, bugs, etc. that are using the call number feature.

How will enumeration fields work? Review of sample record in FOLIO Snapshot - ABA Journal.

You can see the Holdings statement, and then click into the item record. And you can see enumeration and chronology drilling into the item record, with an autogenerated, combined concatenated element. It was identified as a need in the migration subgroup.

What is the difference between the enumeration field and the volume? And the year and the chronology? Unclear from presentation.

Would concatenation mean that you then could not sort by volume or year separately? Yes - the intent is to present the concatenation as a third element. So that it is unclear as to the use case for concatenation. Charlotte will follow up with her SIG.

Enumeration = volume. Chronology = year. Are they separate, or basically meaning the same thing in FOLIO? It's unclear as to why they are defined differently, since from RA SIG they are functionally the same. From a display perspective, you may subsume enumeration into volume, and chronology into year (or vice-versa.) Or, in Aleph, it may be done through enumeration levels.

The need for these things that seems like export is related to MARC record / element mapping and import support.

Concatenation may be helpful when thinking about screen real estate, for example in holdings list view from inventory (before getting to item list.) There is a JIRA about displaying that information in holdings list view, to make it easier to do things like identify non-received items. Charlotte will make a note to specify that in the Jira.

Effective three questions:

• How do we determine "effective call number" for an item? How/is inheritance involved?
• How is that effective call number displayed across apps?
• What logic determines how that call number is sorted?

Question about how data is pulled into various places. For example, on the item record screen, where is the call number coming from? The item record? The holdings record? Sometimes the numbers are different (unable to pull up specific example.) Could be error in holdings, or could be that if location is considered the part of call number, than that makes the call number different.

In OLE and Aleph, item always inherits from the holdings record unless the item is at a temporary location. 

Effective location is not stored anywhere - it's being calculated on display. We should still be able to query on this - has been discussed in Reporting SIG. Question - would there be history, then, of effective locations? Cate thinks that there may be an effective location snapshot with the loan data.

Would there be reporting issues with inheriting the call number from the holdings record? Would there be any impact on how the call number is normalized for sorting purposes?

When normalizing, you would need to normalize the entire display string - which have elements that may not be in the holdings call number (e.g., suffix, enumeration)

Charlotte is asking for examples of normalization of call numbers. UChicago did some work on this, but code may not be shareable due to nature of project it was done for.

Normalization for call numbers for special collections may be really, really, really difficult. Also some specific cases where some libraries use accession number as the call number.

Question from Emma - is there an all-or-nothing inheritance rule? E.g., if you change one part of call number, you can't inherit the rest of it.