2024-07-11 Metadata Management Meeting notes

Meeting time: 11:30 AM ET, 05:30 PM CET, 04:30 PM GMT

Meeting URL: https://zoom.us/j/527543204 . The meeting password can be found here.

\uD83D\uDDD3 Date

11 Jul 2024

✍️ Note taker

Laura Daniels, Lynne Fors, Alissa Hafele, Natascha Owens

📹 Recordings

Recordings of meetings can be found in the Metadata_Management_SIG > Recordings folder on AWS from 2022 onwards: https://recordings.openlibraryfoundation.org/folio/metadata-management-sig/

🗣️ Discussion items

Item	Presenter	Notes
Announcements		The PC wants to update the List of integrations and invites SMEs to check if the content of this page is still up to date. Please add any integrations that are missing!



PC updates	Charlotte Whitt	2024-06-20 Product Council Meeting Notes Announcements: Reminder to folks about voting for the CC, TC and PC. No PC meeting on 6/27/2024 and 7/4/2024. The PC meeting on 7/18/2024 is to be Asian Passific Friendly meeting. Time to be decided later. WOLFcon updates: the Sched program will be sent out next week. A few notifications is to be send out 6/21/2024. Pretty much all sessions were approved. A few conflicts to be resolved. Separate registrations for both workshop (9/23/2024) and the conference. Both are now open, and registrations are trickling in. This year there is a fee for attending virtually 50.00 USD to pay for equipment. SIG report - the link is here. The new PC WG on Better Sample Data in FOLIO Snapshot will have their first meeting on 6/25/2024. SIG Discussion: Conversation with SIG on PC action items from Things that could be better about FOLIO survey. Four topics which require the PC’s focus: Search - improvements to inventory search, both basic and advanced, and cross app search Courses - no PO for four years, no funding, some requirements work underway by Implementer’s SIG: 2024-01-30 FOLIO Implementers Meeting Notes and review to happen in August at Cornell Labeled Jira tickets for Courses Data import - less about new functionality and more about performance, stability, reliability Reporting - options for reporting are distributed and inconsistently available to different FOLIO libraries - how can we come up with a general reporting strategy to ensure all libraries have options available?
BELA (Bulk Edit and Lists App)	Jennifer Eustis	No meeting this week.
Data Import Working Group	Jennifer Eustis	No meeting this week.
quickMARC Subgroup update	Raegan Wiechert	All meetings for June and July have been cancelled

🧑‍💻 Chat

08:31:43 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/resumedraft.action?draftId=317521921&draftShareId=a9be54be-7990-4c82-b351-1df2faa7aad1
08:35:06 From Linda Turney to Everyone:
not seeing screen
08:35:07 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
MODINVSTOR-1220 - Getting issue details... STATUS
08:35:15 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Reacted to "not seeing screen" with ➕
08:35:23 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Reacted to "not seeing screen" with ➕
08:38:00 From Sara Colglazier to Everyone:
+1 to Laura's point!
08:38:09 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 to Laura's point!" with ➕
08:38:09 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 to Laura's point!" with 👍
08:38:14 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 to Laura's point!" with ➕
08:38:17 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 to Laura's point!" with ➕
08:38:18 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Removed a 👍 reaction from "+1 to Laura's point!"
08:38:59 From Chris Long to Everyone:
Reacted to "+1 to Laura's point!" with ➕
08:42:23 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
A system process change versus a human initiated change should be transparently clear
08:42:30 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Apologies for not being prepared but this is the story that we implemented in Poppy - MODINVSTOR-1053 - Getting issue details... STATUS
08:42:31 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "Apologies for not be..." with 💯
08:42:34 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Removed a 💯 reaction from "Apologies for not be..."
08:43:07 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "A system process cha..." with 💯
08:43:54 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "A system process cha..." with 💯
08:44:59 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
that's an excellent comparison, Christie
08:46:33 From Index Data to Everyone:
+ 1 Sara. Change tracker in Inventory would be really nice
08:46:41 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Here is a rough mockup of what Sara means https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17ghSSy1kvLOVGO8JzFyFJXfjbJHt8mo6
08:48:27 From Index Data to Everyone:
This cascading of updates from holdings to item - that’s a new behavior right? Not sure if it was introduced as of Orchid, or Poppy?
08:48:39 From Gerhard, Jeffery to Everyone:
With older ILS systems using relational databases, it was easier to maintain update dates for particular tables. Status updates would be in a separate table from 'metadata' updates
08:50:16 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Like an unmapped 9xx field?
08:51:53 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I think it's a broader conversation
08:52:01 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think it's a broad..." with ➕
08:52:02 From Index Data to Everyone:
I thought this was triggered by Kafka messaging
08:52:05 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think it's a broad..." with ➕
08:52:05 From Index Data to Everyone:
Reacted to "I think it's a broad..." with ➕
08:52:11 From Lisa Furubotten TA&M to Everyone:
Just asking: was the Instance not updated; or was it updated and just didn't look different because what what change in MARC doesn't show in the Instance?
08:53:01 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Replying to "Just asking: was th..."

I think that is the use case just described. The changed MARC data is outside of what was mapped to the instance. But the instance was still updated from the new version of the marc record.

08:53:04 From Index Data to Everyone:
Replying to "Just asking: was th..."

The instance was not updated. The change was only in a MARC tag not represented in the Instance

08:53:11 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Does receiving an item have any impact on item records? We don't have ours connected
08:53:37 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Reacted to "Does receiving an it..." with 👆
08:54:02 From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone:
Replying to "Just asking: was th..."

Right, nothing changed in the instance, but the instance was updated - the updated date and updated by information changes.

08:54:14 From Lisa Furubotten TA&M to Everyone:
Replying to "Just asking: was th..."

Right, so you are telling me that a 'replace' is triggered only when a mapped field is changed in the MARC record, not when anything is changed in the MARC record.

08:55:18 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Replying to "Does receiving an it..."

Thanks for the answer Sara

08:56:38 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
Replying to "Just asking: was th..."

no, currently it's "replaced" even when nothing has actually changed in the Instance data -- this is problematic in my opinion

08:57:31 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
if we had some sort of change log, it would solve a lot of my concerns
08:58:02 From Sara Colglazier to Everyone:
Would it be possible to be even more specific than just FOLIO system, to FOLIO App X?
08:58:21 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
but also, if nothing has changed (e.g. the Instance/MARC example), the record should not be considered updated. to me updated means something changed.
09:00:09 From Index Data to Everyone:
Maybe test in one of the older flower release environments, before this new change pattern was introduced
09:02:15 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I would like to see any status changes from check-out/in to be tracked in the date only associated with the status of the item and not the full item record.
09:02:19 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
You're doing a great job managing this conversation, Christie
09:02:36 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Reacted to "if we had some sort ..." with ➕
09:04:00 From Index Data to Everyone:
Reacted to "You're doing a great..." with 💯
09:04:05 From Chris Long to Everyone:
Reacted to "if we had some sort ..." with ➕
09:04:05 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "You're doing a great..." with 💯
09:04:21 From Corrie Hutchinson to Everyone:
Reacted to "You're doing a great..." with 💯
09:04:46 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Reacted to "You're doing a great..." with 💯
09:06:59 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Reacted to "You're doing a great..." with 💯
09:07:17 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I would find it more helpful to have the "via [app]" on the same line as Changed in bold.
09:08:00 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Replying to "I would find it more..."

or the specific fields indented under the via [app]

09:08:46 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Reacted to "I would find it more..." with 👍
09:09:14 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Reacted to "or the specific fiel..." with 👍
09:12:05 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
The answer is it depends on what happened
09:12:35 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
I personally prefer less granularity, as it (tracking changes) seems too complicated otherwise.
09:12:58 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
and I agree with Sara, that knowing "who" or "what" made the change is important
09:14:11 From Ryan Tamares - Stanford Law Library to Everyone:
Replying to "and I agree with Sar..."

Yes to app-level change tracking in this context

09:15:27 From Laura Daniels to Everyone:
OK, thank you -- I'll get this onto the AI agenda
09:18:17 From Khalilah (EBSCO) to Everyone:
Reacted to "OK, thank you -- I'l..." with 👍