Recordings are posted Here (2022+) and Here (pre-2022) Slack channel for Q&A, discussion between meetings
Requirements details Here Additional discussion topics in Subgroup parking lot
Attendees: Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated) Monica Arnold Jennifer Eustis leeda.adkins@duke.edu Lloyd Chittenden Raegan Wiechert Christie Thomas Jeanette Kalchik Jenn Colt
Current development (Nolana)
Agenda topics:
- Service point in item records
- Newly-created item records default to showing the first service point in the Circulation history, even when the item was never checked in
- Affects items created by Data Import as well as manually
- See
- Was fixed in Morning Glory; once libraries upgrade to MG, confirm that it is no longer happening, for manually-created or data-import-created item records
- Update individual MARC fields (and by extension, Instance fields)
- Leeda tested in MG Bugfest, editing 710s to shorten/change them, and then imported to update the 710s; only updated the first one
- Please bring examples of use cases, and we'll workshop in the meeting
- What behavior needs to be updated? especially repeatable vs non-repeatable fields?
- Non-repeatable
- Incoming would replace the existing value
- Rest of the record would be untouched
- A-M to test: Fully cataloged record in FOLIO, brief record being imported with change in the 1xx field - confirm the rest of the existing SRS MARC Bib is retained, 1xx field is updated, 245 is not updated
- Repeatable use cases - please send existing MARC Bib, update MARC Bib, and the expected FOLIO behavior to Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated) , via Slack or e-mail
- Repeatable - 9xx fields Jenn Colt
- Single 903 on existing record, 3 new 903s on incoming record
- If want to add the new 903s and retain the existing 903, and not touch the rest of the record: protect 903, update 903 only
- If want to add the new 903s and discard any existing 903, and not touch the rest of the record: DO NOT protect 903, update 903 only
- Repeatable - Authority updates from vendor Lloyd Chittenden
- Would need to add the 1xx/6xx/7xx/8xx fields, with brief MARC Bib data for other fields
- Repeatable - OCLC numbers Christie Thomas
- Instance HRID, OCLC number (Leader, 008, Title?)
- Match on Instance HRID, adding 035 (would need to protect existing 035s)
- Maybe increases the need for profile-level field protections, or settings in import profile - delete all existing and add, leave all existing and add
- Could we use the logic that we have for repeatable fields in other parts of the field mapping profile (add to existing, remove existing and add these, remove all, find and remove this one)
- Repeatable - RDA updates to 3xx fields leeda.adkins@duke.edu
- Repeatable - 583/506 for commitment statements Jennifer Eustis
- Interaction of Update individual fields and Field protections
- Test: include repeatable and non-repeatable fields in the same update profile
- A-M will add bug(s) to update the expected behavior
Upcoming meetings:
- 5 October 2022
- 45 minutes
- Nolana final scope
- Orchid planning: Create/update multiple holdings and items from individual MARC Bib records. Please send sample files to abreaux@ebsco.com
- 12 October 2022
- Importing Orders: Nolana final scope/Future refinement feature
- Create/update multiple holdings and items from individual MARC Bib records. Please send sample files to abreaux@ebsco.com
Zoom chat:
From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:10 PM
circ settings?
From Raegan Wiechert to Everyone 01:10 PM
This is in the item record, not holdings
From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:10 PM
I don't have permissions for the Amherst College but it is the one assigned for all our data imports
From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:13 PM
isn't this the bug?
i don't think it is real, i think it's uI only
From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:32 PM
our use case is also adding a single 9xx
i only did repeatable one and it definitely didn't work ;)
From Leeda Adkins to Everyone 01:32 PM
We do this currently through merge routines, which are tables that start with "accept all incoming fields unless", then the protections; or "retain all existing fields unless," then the updates
From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:40 PM
We do the same thing with OCLC numbers. We have a brief bib with the instance hrid and the OCLC number and we just want to add the OCLC number to the FOLIO record.
From Leeda Adkins to Everyone 01:41 PM
We did the same thing as Christie mentioned for part of our OCLC Data Sync project, just insert the OCLC number
From Leeda Adkins to Everyone 01:50 PM
Our vendor does rda updates as well
From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:50 PM
I don't think I could set up that authority example as well as LLoyd. What I could set up is the OCN merge.
From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:51 PM
the oclc number thing is relevant for us too
From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:52 PM
For us, we sometimes need to work with the 583 for our commitment statement and the 506 for our eResources. Those fields need to be updated. The 583 is protected but not the 506
From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:54 PM
583 is another good one! We do that, too.
Yeah, we cannot protect the 035s in the record.
From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:55 PM
Like for the statistical codes or the electronic access options