NEW MM implementation topics, questions or issues
OPEN Open topic that is not yet discussed with the SIG
| Topic | Status | Description | Date added | Provided by Name, Institution | Interested parties Name, Institution | Jira | Has been discussed in meeting (add link) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARC search | OPEN | MARC search directly supported in FOLIO UI | n.a. | |||||
| MARC general | OPEN | Validation of MARC records. See: | STCOM-745 Closed → Done | 2023-01-18: Still need for discussion? 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| ||||
| Record management | OPEN | duplicative metadata for eBooks: some in the remote KB, which allows for accessing the eBooks in the library’s discovery layer, and some in locally-stored MARC records. Moving forward, do we see that scenario working differently in FOLIO (only use KB metadata perhaps?) and if so, 1) what does that mean in terms of the richness of the metadata and 2) what about current workflows that involve transporting non-bibliographic metadata in those local MARC records, e.g. acquisitions data? (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017): discuss topic: https://discuss.folio.org/t/ebook-metadata-records-in-folio/1286. How are ebooks / ebook packages going to be represented in the inventory? libraries have a variety of approaches to managing ebooks - some have individual records for ebooks; some have a 1 record approach (ebook links on print records) AND we can have the same ebook title represented in multiple packages; it sounds as if Packages will be represented in the Codex, but not the inventory. Nov. 15, 2018 update: Packages may now be represented by Container records in Inventory (Lynn W., 9/28/17) discuss topic: https://discuss.folio.org/t/ebook-packages-relationship-to-individual-title-records/1287. Revisit Container Records (depending on roadmap) – UXPROD-491 |
| 2023-01-18: Comment on Jira ticket from Charlotte:
We need to revisit this topic. Orders supports now linking of "packages" to POL's. 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| ||||
| Record management | OPEN | metadata for non-textual formats, to ensure FOLIO is taking their needs into account enough. (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017). Inventory Beta Metadata Elements Need music cataloging review of Inventory, MarCat, etc. (Laura W, Oct. 15, 2018) Music / Maps / Media cataloging review of data elements in Inventory – show & tell? | 2023-01-18: Status of this work? How is the experience of libraries using Inventory with special collections? 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| |||||
| Record management | OPEN | Combined format bib records: while you are considering this resources/formats, don't forget folks who have multiple formats on one bib, so there could be 007s etc. on print records where the e-version is also noted on the print version. (Lisa, TAMU, Jan 18 2018) | 2023-01-18: Is this supported by the MARC2Instance mapping? 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| |||||
| Record management | OPEN | protecting local edits (inventory records): this is definitely not something I think we should be asking for in v1, but I'd love to be able to protect fields not in a systematic way, but specific fields in specific records – for example, we have added a local genre/form term to some records that help students find materials for a class assignment; most of the records are for print materials but a few are for e-books that we have acquired as part of a package; our current batch-loading processes don't preclude the possibility of this field being stripped out if an updated version of the record is supplied to us; Adding to this on 18 Octo 2017: I'd also like to be able to do something like protect an item record from deletion based on a location code (Laura W, 27 Sept 2017) | 2023-01-18: This is still a highly relevant topic and a very demanded function. 2023-01-26 from meeting: Still needs to be discussed | |||||
| Record management | OPEN | Multiple (aka Alternate) Graphical Representations FOLIO-wide issues around the display of non-Roman character sets is present. There should be a way to make sure that all Unicode values are validate-able including those stored in the MARCcat or Source data stores. The ability to validate Unicode values in current systems does not exist, so doing so would be an improvement of the current state. | UXPROD-1646 Draft | 2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic. 2023-01-26 from meeting: still needs to be discussed; model change needed to support this; need to confirm that proposal is still accurate and then bump to Technical Council and maybe Entity Management; from chat: what does this question look like to our Chinese colleagues? | ||||
| Record management | OPEN | Links and linking fields between Inventory records, e.g. monographic series instance relationships, 773 fields, bound-withs, etc. | 2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic. 2023-01-26 from meeting: need to collect all linking/relationships possible and then see if we have implemented them in Folio; how does this relate to requesting items? Split bound-withs and Instance/Instance into two separate topics Discuss display with RA SIG | |||||
| Inventory search | OPEN discuss after Orchid release | Symbols / words indexing in Inventory, e.g. & and, y, und, et: | MSEARCH-447 Open | 2023-01-18: With the change to ElasticSearch the technology has changed. Is this still a topic we'd like to discuss? 2023-01-26 from meeting: still needs to be discussed (after Orchid release check if discussion is still needed; also check for non-English) | ||||
| Inventory search | OPEN | Synching holdings and item data with bibliographic data: Some note elements that have been defined for holdings and items (e.g., action note, ownership and custodial history) have historically been maintained in 5xx fields in the bibliographic record. How will the data be managed when it is required at both the bibliographic (5xx entries) and holdings / item level (Inventory data elements)? (Christie, Chicago, July 12, 2018) | 2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution? 2023-01-26 from meeting: still needs to be discussed as some institutions are still using mostly 5XX; maybe something for Entity Management? | |||||
Inventory search Inventory UI | OPEN | Search Results Display issues: Default inventory data for display in search results list. Related to UXPROD-1634. New story required to request ability to configure which inventory are displayed in the results list. (Christie Thomas, UChicago, 7/8/2019) | UXPROD-491 Analysis complete | 2023-01-18: Reviewed in 2022. Link to UX mocks up for hierarchical display of the result list. We need to revisit this topic and discuss requirements for configurations; need to talk to Roadmap group about making this a top priority; also talk to Implementers Group, what does LC think of this? | ||||
| Inventory UI | OPEN | Order/sequencing of holdings on an instance, and order/sequence of items within a holdings record: should there be a way to control the order (alphabetical, sequential numeric, always show Main first) (Lisa, TAMU, July 19 2018) Default order of holdings records, per Slack: A group from multiple German libraries is wondering if we could find consensus with a new default sort order: Sorting proposal: Ascending [A-Z0-9] by name of location and, if necessary, further ascending by call number, as those values are visible in the collapsed Holdings record view from the Instance record. (Felix, GBV, 2022-11-20) | 2023-01-18: We need to create a ticket for the new holdings default sort order. Tickets for reordering still in draft state. 2023-01-26 from meeting: still needs to be discussed; the default should be a tenant level setting Also need to be able to sort/re-order holdings statements (need to discuss Spring 2023) UXPROD-1610 - Getting issue details... STATUS | |||||
| Inventory UI | OPEN | Acquisitions data display in Holdings/Items (UXPROD-1607) – revisit Receiving data in Holdings? In Receiving app? | UXPROD-1607 Analysis complete | 2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic. 2023-02-02: Some acq data is now populating, but not all. Need to review to see if we need changes. | ||||
Inventory UI Customization | OPEN | UI review of Inventory for different types of users/different institutions’ data; including treatment of fields that are not mapped (as opposed to data not recorded, i.e. blank fields) Show & Tell? | 2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic. 2023-02-02: still needs to be discussed | |||||
| Inventory dependencies | OPEN | Ability to maintain relationships between other apps when holdings/items are moved | UXPROD-1647 (umbrella issue) Open | 2023-01-18: Status: Several dependencies still unsolved. 2023-02-02: App Interaction and Technical Council have been doing work; need to have an update/presentation on? Yes- App Interaction | ||||
| Reporting | OPEN | Right now there are a few UXPROD issues related to in app reports for inventory. It's not clear though that the data for these comes from inventory alone, at least some seem to include MARC data that would be in SRS. More clarity on the reports that will be generated from inventory, SRS, and MARCCat in-app reports vs data warehouse reports would be helpful. (jenn colt, Cornell, 4/25/19) | 2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution? 2023-02-02: Yes, not everyone has access to out-of-app reporting; Include Reporting SIG | |||||
| Printing | OPEN *(after 2/14) | Update and possible demo of Format and print of spine labels. https://issues.folio.org/browse/UXPROD-1316 In particular, what is the expected user interface and is there a plan to have a dedicated Settings > Inventory > Label printing permission or is it due to be part of existing permissions? It appears to still be planned to be completed for Juniper. Also, and update to ABLE Bindery (https://issues.folio.org/browse/UXPROD-2800). | UXPROD-1316 In refinement | 2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution? 2023-02-02: Yes, all printing, not just labels; App Interaction has discussed this (need to contact Martina); Folio Implementers will discuss label printing on 2/14 2023-03-10-ability to print MARC records (Instance record, Action→View source) coming in Orchid | ||||
OPEN MM implementation topics, questions or issues
IN JIRA JIRA ticket created, work outstanding or in progress
DISCUSSED Topic is discussed in SIG, needs JIRA ticket to be created
| Topic | Status | Description | Date added | Provided by Name, Institution | Interested parties Name, Institution | Jira | Has been discussed in meeting (add link) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Versioning | DISCUSSED | Change tracker development | UXPROD-782 Open | 2023-04-20 Metadata Management Meeting notes | 2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic? I know that there is something going on in Orders with a history. 2023-02-02: versioning of the records is available; there is a change tracker for Orders coming in Orchid (ask Dennis for demo); need to look into privacy requirements; questions about amount of data being stored 2023-04-20: Please add MM use cases here: Version History Use Cases (Inventory app). Once we have a reasonable list of use cases, we'll discuss this topic once again in the SIG. | |||
COMPLETED or CLOSED MM implementation topics, questions or issues
Status
DONE Topic is discussed, ticket is created and development is completed
WON'T DO Topic is discussed in SIG, won't be developed, no further actions to follow
FORWARDED Topic will be picked up by another group (please add which one)
| Topic | Status | Description | Date added | Provided by Name, Institution | Interested parties Name, Institution | Jira | Has been discussed in meeting (add link) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARC search | DONE | Demo of MARC SRS Search API: UXPROX-2916. This is ranked as R1 for many libraries. It would be great to learn what has been done, what work is scheduled, plans for future development including a demo. (Jennifer E.: June 10, 2021) | UXPROX-2916 | 2023-02-16 Metadata Management Meeting notes | ||||
| MARC mapping | DONE | Default mapping of MARC to Inventory Records: Behavior after migration "I don't want to take us back to the previous discussion and derail this one, but I'm curious about expected behavior for changing the default mapping for MARC records to inventory records. When we change, do we expect that all of the existing records in inventory would be retroactively updated from the MARC store? What would that do to system performance while it's happening? It might be a non-issue for the developers, I just wanted to bring it up so we can make sure it gets thought through." - Dennis Christman (posted in MM SIG meeting chat on 2/7/2019) | 2023-03-02 Metadata Management Meeting notes | 2023-01-18: With the development and refinement of the Data Import app, is this still a relevant topic to revisit? wouldn't re-indexing be the way to make such changes to existing data? (Laura D.) 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| ||||