Skip to end of banner
Go to start of banner

Requirement questions | Linking bib field to authority record | Create/Edit/Delete authority record interactions

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 16 Current »

Details: We need your help to finalize manually linking bib field to authority record requirements. These questions focus on Create/Edit authority record interactions. Please

  1. Review each Scenario and Outcome Option
  2. In Outcome selection, please prepend your initials to your outcome selection option 
  3. In Comments column, please prepend your initials to your comment

NOTE: All linked bib fields will have a $0 populated and will be read-only on the UI. The $0 will populate a URI that includes the linked Authority record 010 $a or 001 as a unique identifier. A MARC bib field's $0 will serve as a match point. 

Scenarios

#ScenarioOutcome OptionOutcome selectionComments
1Create new MARC authority record via data import 

A. No change. Nothing happens as far as linking.

B. I expect something else. 

JAC-BJAC- Would like to be able to auto-link records based on the 010 matching a $0, but would prefer this to happen outside of the import process due to other potential processes happening at the same time. Would prefer that linking isn't tied to data import, including separate logs.
JC- logs should be available at the completion of this process. If there are other circumstances that create unlinked records but have a $0 consider making this some kind of regular scheduled system process rather than related to DI.
2

Edit MARC authority (1XX field) records via data import 

  1. User imports a MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. Import includes an update to the record's 100 $a value from Twain, Mark to Twain, Marc E. 

Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows.   

A. 30 minutes 

B. 60 minutes

C. 8 hours

D. 12 hours

E. 24 hours

F. I want to schedule when these updates happen

G. I expect something else


Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records?

A. Dashboard/widget

B. In-app report 

C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) 

D. Add an indication of the status of updating bib records on the Data import job list?

E. I expect something else

Question 1

RW- same answers and comments to both questions as questions 3 and 7

JC - overnight, depending on job size





Question 2

jc - DI log


3

Edit MARC authority (1XX field) records via quickMARC

  1. User accesses MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. User edits the record's 1XX value from from Twain, Mark to Twain, Marc E. 
  4. User hits Save 
  5. Display a message that informs user of the total number of linked bib records that will be updated
  6. If user proceeds with update then bib records will be updated in a separate process. 
  7. The Outcome options columns has several questions.  

Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows.   

A. 30 minutes 

B. 60 minutes

C. 8 hours

D. 12 hours

E. 24 hours

F. I want to schedule when these updates happen

G. I expect something else


Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records?

A. Dashboard/widget

B. In-app report 

C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) 

D. I expect something else

Question 1

RW-B

JC - E/G- determine a cut off, like 100 do at once 5k do over night.



Question 2

RW- see comment

Question 1

JC- Hard to determine without knowing the update mechanism. If this is a shadow DI job, performance and other concerns much higher, would want to do large sets overnight even more.



Question 2

RW- I'm not sure which method I want, but I would want a push notification of some type because chances are that I forgot this running a couple of minutes after it started

JC - DI log style

4

Edit MARC authority (NOT 010 $a or 1XX field) field via quickMARC 

  1. User accesses MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. User edits the record's 4XX value  
  4. User hits Save 

A. No impact to any bib records linked to the authority record 

B. I expect something else

RW -A

JAC- A


5

Edit MARC authority (NOT 010 $a or 1XX field) records via data import 

  1. User imports a MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. Import includes an update to record's 4XX value  

A. No impact to any bib records linked to the authority record 

B. I expect something else

RW- A

JAC- A


6

Edit MARC authority (010 $a field) record via data import 

  1. User imports a MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. Import includes an update to the record's 010 $a value  

A. No impact. Create a new MARC authority record.

B. Update 010 $a value and update all linked bib fields' $0 

C. I expect something else

RW-C

JAC-A

RW- This one I would want to talk out possibilities more.  Especially when dealing with formerly undifferentiated names.

JC–if the 1xx field changes, then I would want B, but if the 010 changes then the records would need further examination–usually this doesn't happen unless a record is being deleted, and that typically requires human intervention due to the complexity of undifferentitated names. I would prefer a report of these types of string matches based on the 1xx.

7

Edit MARC authority (010 $a field) record via quickMARC

  1. User accesses MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records
  3. User edits the record's 010 $a value 
  4. User hits Save 
  5. Display a message that informs user of the total number of linked bib records that will be updated
  6. If user proceeds with update then bib records will be updated in a separate process. 
  7. The Outcome options columns has several questions.  

Question 1. If we cannot guarantee real-time updates of linked bib records (due to number of records to update) what is the MOST tolerable amount of time to wait for linked bib updates to complete that do not impact your workflows.   

A. 30 minutes 

B. 60 minutes

C. 8 hours

D. 12 hours

E. 24 hours

F. I want to schedule when these updates happen

G. Do not allow a user to change 010 $a. Make it a read-only field (just like 001).

H. I expect something else


Question 2. How should FOLIO communicate the state of updating linking MARC bib records?

A. Dashboard/widget

B. In-app report 

C. Job logs list similar to data import (UX) - https://bugfest-mg.int.aws.folio.org/data-import (username: folio / password: folio) 

D. I expect something else

Question 1

RW-B

LED-G/H



Question 2

RW- see comment

Question 1

LED-I cannot think of a use case for making local changes to the 010. But if we did change the 010 the bibs should no longer be linked.


Question 2

RW- I'm not sure which method I want, but I would want a push notification of some type because chances are that I forgot this running a couple of minutes after it started

8

Delete MARC authority record via quickMARC

  1. User wants to delete MARC authority record (personal name - 100 $a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910) 
  2. This record is linked to 1000 bib records 

A. Allow for deletion to proceed. Ask user to confirm that they want to delete the authority record. Ensure they understand impact of unlinking these records by providing # of records to be unlinked.  Linked bib fields are no longer linked. Retain [$a Twain, Mark, $d 1835-1910 $0 <<URI>>] only change is user can now edit these values because no longer controlled. 

B. Do not allow a user to delete authority record with linked bib records. 

C. I expect something else

RW-A

JAC- A

RW- If we go with option B, then there needs to be a good mechanism for unlinking records because I do not want to have to unlink hundreds or thousands of records by hand in order to delete one authority record.

JC- ^^^^This^^^^^

  • No labels