2024-08-06 BELA Meeting Notes

1

Housekeeping

• Attendees  - please add your name to the list of attendees.

2

WOLFcon 2024

• BELA Working Group Meeting is on the official agenda for September 24th at 3:30 PM BST (5 hours ahead of EST). The meeting is scheduled for 50 minutes.

• Current list of presenters:

  • Jeanette Kalchik

  • Jennifer Eustis

  • Lynne Fors

  • Kathleen Moore

  • Magda Zacharska (moderator)

• Questions:

  • Anyone else wants to present?

  • Who is going to be London and who is going to join remotely?

  • Should Kathleen and I get an overview of the roadmap? Yes

  • Next steps? Magda will coordinate a conversation between those presenting.

3

Ramsons release updates

• Bulk edit (Kanban Board)

• Lists app (Kanban board)

  • Feedback/showing of progress next time we meet

  • Development is underway for:

    • Composite entity types (nesting of records)

    • Cross-tenant queries in an ECS environment

    • Querying repeating fields with defined values

4

Follow up on Bulk edit MARC Instances

• Differentiate between updating MARC fields and FOLIO fields

UAT feedback: The distinction between what can be edited in the Instance and what can only be edited in the source data needs to be clearer.

• Tags and subfields order after adding new field or subfield

  • Should they be reordered?

• When a preview of MARC records is generated, we update:

  • LDR

  • 005

  • Any other field needs to be updated as well?

• Overwriting fields protection

  • Doable with profile creation

  • Possibly need to move to next release (Sunflower)

5

UAT Feedback

Bulk edit of FOLIO Instance notes:

• Overview:

• Detailed responses:

Summary

• 13 participants representing seven institutions

• User unfamiliar with bulk edit could not complete the UAT - flow seems to be unintuitive, but better instructions would help

• Only two participants tested FOLIO instances all others attempted bulk edit of MARC records

• Integration with Query tool was considered clunky and will require better integration with list

• Clear separation between Errors and Warnings

• Related Jiras: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NYCbBw#Ramsons-Release

6

Implementation topics

• Bulk Edit Resource Management Implementation Topics

• https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BICdD

Notes

WOLFcon 2024 Update

The working group meeting is on the official agenda. It's scheduled for September 24th at 3:30 (5 hrs ahead of EST) for 50 minutes. Right now we have the following participants. On-site or remove listed below.

• Jeanette Kalchik (on-site in London)

• Jennifer Eustis (on-site in London)

• Lynne Fors (Remote)

• Kathleen Moore (on-site in London)

• Magda Zacharska (moderator) (on-site in London)

Magda asked if we should provide an overview on the roadmap? Jeanette and Jennifer liked the idea of adding the roadmap.

Jeanette asked about the amount of time to present. Magda will schedule a separate chat with the presentors to discuss timing and go over presentations.

Ramsons Release Updates

Not much to show. Still working on backend bulk edit of Mark Fields. You will see the changes in the Ui. However, the functionality on the back end is not connected yet.

List App Updates

At our next meeting there will be more to share and get more meaningful feedback from this group at that point.

Currently the middle of development on our composite entity types/nest queries, types of records essentially. And doing some cleanup to make it more user friendly.

Are also working on the ability to query repeated repeating fields.

And then the last area that we are actively in development on is being able to query across tenants in an ECS (Enhanced Consortia Support) environment.

Bob asked what FQM and USAP are? FQM is FOLIO Query Machine. It's essentially the back end or the APIs that are used in the query builder Which is shared across both edit and the list.

Bulk Edit of MARC Instances

Magda reported that there was some discussion in the in the Slack channel and in the feedback from UAT that there needs to be some clearification of what is the difference between MARC/SRS fields and FOLIO Instance fields. Kimi created a mockup that introduce a new record type that is called source record storage to make a clear distinction. Magda asked for feedback.

Open

Jennifer suggested we should use the same label as in the Inventory QuickMarc editor, “MARC Bibliographic Record.”

Open

Source Record Storage will have authority and MARC holdings records. And in Bulk Edit we may have want to designate MARC Authority and MARC Holdings record types. There were agreement from several others at this meeting that “MARC Bibliographic” is a good choice.

Magda pointed out that if we go with the option of separating MARC records from inventory records, the query tool may not work as expected. The Lists App does not support MARC source yet. For now it relys on the Inventory App to search for records and then retreives the MARC source records. Kathleen indicated that this will possibly end up in the roadmap as early as the FOLIO Sunflower or the following flower release and that they anticipate that this will be needed sooner rather than later.

Magda asked the group if having the option to select either Inventory or MARC Bibliographic at the point of starting a bulk edit from the actions drop-down would be clear to users. When a user chooses Inventory, only the staff suppress, suppress from discovery, administrative notes, and statistical codes (when implemented) would be available, and when MARC Bibliographic is selected the user would only have MARC fields available.

“MARC fields” in Actions drop-down will be renames MARC Bibliographic.

Jennifer suggested this needs to be spelled out in documentation as she is used to the term SRS.

Jennifer asked what would happen if the user uploads a file of identifiers that contain both FOLIO source records and MARC source records.

Magda indicated that if the user selects to run a bulk edit on Inventory fields, then FOLIO source records will be updated, and those which are MARC source will generate error messages and vice versa.

Jennifer agreed this makes sense and suggested this should also be added to the documentation.

Jeanette asked if it would be possible to group the ones together? So you have the admin note at the top and the suppress from discovery at the bottom. To have a section that this will happen to all records, and then this will happen to FOLIO only. Magda thought this a good suggestion.

Peter asked if once the MARC source record is updated whether the mapped MARC fileds to Instance fields will be updated. Magda assured him that the instance mapped fields would be updated as expected.

Bob asked if the user will be able to submit a mix of source record types if we have the two options in the set criteria section, “Inventory - instances” and Source record storage - MARC bib (which will be renamed “MARC Bibliogrphic”) and thus generate errors when a bulk edit is started. Magda indicated that it will still be possible to submit a mix of records and we will need to rely on the user to know how this works.

We will come back to this in the future. There was feedback from UAT that was discouraging regarding the understanding of record types as it relates to updating records with Bulk Edit.

Field Sorting

Magda asked the group about sorting behavior when adding a new MARC field with a bulk edit. Currently, when a new field is added, the fields are sorted numeritcally and the subfields are ordered alphabetically followed by numeric subfields. Is this the expected behavior, or are there other cases where this sorting order is not the desired outcome?

Jennifer and others mentioned there are some fields like the 541 where the subfields are not in this order.

Magda reminded the group that for Ransoms release, we are talking about MARC fields 500 and 590. In later releases we will address other fields.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:39:35
So you are saying that it's better to have the existing record, and if we are adding.

Bob asked if the subfields that are not in alphabetical order are documented as part of the MARC standard? The FOLIO code should adhear to the standard. Magda will double check with Khalilah as to whether the sorting of the subfields is being handled through the valuation rules. Considering that right now we are talking about 500 and 590 only, Magda suggested that we stick with the current ordering and she will check on whether validation rules come into play here and come back with questions at the next meeting.

005 and Other Field Updates

When changes are made to the MARC record (e.g., appending new fields or changing the length of a note), the leader and 005 fields must be updated to reflect when the change occurred.

Magda asked if there were other fields that should be considered for updating when a record is modified. This question may be followed up on Slack.

UAT Feedback

Bulk edit of FOLIO Instance notes:

UAT Review Summary:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1KHgGB0guiUTskJRLHkEkzUjniKFB__UU/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107320391630005812658&rtpof=true&sd=true

Detailed responses:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sVHMyKNnr4SQmPyCkV30eAlecqajcn1l/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107320391630005812658&rtpof=true&sd=true

Magda provided summary of the UAT:

• There were 30 participants representing 7 organizations. So when it comes to bulk edit UAT this was a good response.

• UAT cover bulk edit of FOLIO instance note fields.

• The distinction between FOLIO and MARC instances is not clearly understood by participants.

• 11 participants edited MARC instances.

Magda went over results in some more detail:

• Users who were not familiar with bug edit had problems, completing the UAT.

• More detailed instructions could have been helpful, but the software used did not allow for this. Looking into using something different for next time.

• Only 2 participants used FOLIO instances. All other tied to edit MARC records.

• The integation with the query tool was clunky and better integration with the Lists App will need to be required.

• Several users mentioned that teh error reporting was confusing regarding records reported to not require any changes.

• Magda has created several JIRAs as a result in addition to the ones already created.

• Links are proved in this spreadsheet:

  • Related Jiras: UAT Issues and Improvements by Release | Ramsons Release

• It was requested that we add the search type “contains” be added. See MODBULKOPS-325

• And a couple of respondents suggested that the bulk edit will allow saving queries allowing the user to return to search done. That may be required further integration with list app, something that Kathleen and I will be working on. UXPROD-4932: Saving queries in Bulk editDraft

• One of the requests was to add the ability to add multiple administrative notes in one job. That can be done, probably in several ways. We will probably discuss this in more details, later. See See UIBULKED-521: Ability to add multiple administrative notes in one jobDraft

• It was also mentioned that the note area only resizes vertically. It would improve the experience if note area could resize in both directions. See UIBULKED-520: Spike - Investigate ability to resize note area diagonallyClosed

• Querying for values in the in the notes fields. This is on the roadmap for lists and requires handling repeatable fields as is the case with notes fields. See UXPROD-4859: Query Builder - Handling Repeatable Fields - Objects with defined and free entry textboxesDraft

• It was mentioned that it would be helpful to allow users to select records to edit once resulting matches come back from query. This is on the Bulk Edit roadmap but not currently prioritized. See UXPROD-4674: Bulk edit - Sorting and filtering result set for submitted identifiers Open

• Clearly separating errors from warnings. If there is a problem with the field that is not affected by Bulk Edit, this should be reported as a warning, not as an error.

Bulk Edit and Lists App Resource Management Implementation Topics

• Bulk Edit Resource Management Implementation Topics

• Bulk Edit Resource Management Implementation Topics

• Jennifer Eustis reminded the group to start voting on the topics discussed.

• Voting helps identify community interests but doesn't guarantee developer action.

• Votes currently indicate that handling error messages, and central tenant updates are top vote getters with one each. The rest are at zero votes.

• Jennifer listed the open topic not discussed Yet

  • Ability to select a subset of the records retrieved to be acted on by bulk edit (Jennifer and Magda will look to see if there is a Jira on this one or submit a new one).

  • Ability to apply logic/calculations/conditions to bulk edit changes

  • Implement ability to change “Holdings type” in Bulk Edit (already in being worked on

  • Ability to bulk edit srs marc bib LDR and fixed fields (007, 006, 008)

  • (Instance/SRS Only) Ability to use “System control number” to search for Instances

Jennfer asked group which ones should be discussed today.

Bob asked about number 9, “Implement ability to change call number array of type, prefix, suffix, and call number.” Jennifer indicated this one is already in progress.

Lynn asked about number 11, “(Instance/SRS Only) Ability to use “System control number” to search for Instances.“ It would be useful to have ability to use control numbers in the instance that are not OCLC numbers as a match point in Bulk Edit. This is especailly useful for e-resources. UMASS, Chigago and Cornell, etc. have use cases for this.

Jennifer ask the group if this is something that we would like to write up and Jira ticket for?

Jeanette wondered if it would be for all system control numbers or only ones of 1st Indicator 9? Because they do not use the 1st indicator 9 but it would also be useful to still be able to search by system control number for their eresources.

Magda agreed that Jennifer should write up the JIRA ticket for using the 035 non-OCLC numbers as an identifier for bulk edits. Jennifer will add the ability to also match 035s without first indicator 9 (non-OCLC numbers) for schools not relying on first indicator 9 like Jennette suggested.

Chat

10:05:20 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I'll be remote
10:06:01 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Road map would be great
10:06:19 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Reacted to "Road map would be gr..." with ➕
10:13:49 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
There may be more than MARC as a source record
10:14:23 From Lisa English to Everyone:
Agree.
10:14:29 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "Agree." with ➕
10:14:36 From Kimie (kee-mee) Kester to Everyone:
MARC bibliographic record 👍
10:14:48 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Reacted to "MARC bibliographic r..." with ➕
10:14:57 From Scott Perry to Everyone:
Reacted to "Agree." with ➕
10:14:59 From Jackie Magagnosc to Everyone:
Reacted to "MARC bibliographic r..." with ➕
10:16:22 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Trillium?
10:16:31 From Kathleen Moore to Everyone:
Reacted to "Trillium?" with 👍
10:17:27 From jeanette kalchik to Everyone:
Replying to "Trillium?"

10:18:17 From Kathleen Moore to Everyone:
Reacted to "https://folio-org.at..." with 👍
10:21:11 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
+1 to documentation
10:30:32 From Kara Hart (she/hers) to Everyone:
Can you mix and match multiple changes at once with some that are folio only vs marc or both? and what happens?
10:37:34 From jeanette kalchik to Everyone:
We have 590s $a$c$b
10:38:44 From Jackie Magagnosc to Everyone:
The first 650 is supposed to align with the call number
10:39:01 From Tim Kiser to Everyone:
Reacted to "The first 650 is sup..." with ➕
10:39:03 From Tim Kiser to Everyone:
I think order of fields and subfields should be preserved across the board.
10:39:05 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
648 should come after the 650s
10:42:08 From Ruth Ann (she/her) to Everyone:
The 541 has specific subfields for different pieces of info but the subfields are natural text, not enumerated values.
10:42:39 From Ruth Ann (she/her) to Everyone:
For example $a in the 541 is the name of the bookseller or donor from whom the material was acquired (usually only used for rare books)
10:44:04 From Ruth Ann (she/her) to Everyone:
Yes I'm a rare book cataloger
10:44:48 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I think its just those two fields that automatically change/update.
10:52:57 From Jennifer Eustis to Everyone:
Bulk Edit Resource Management Implementation Topics
10:53:55 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
I glanced
10:55:57 From Lynne Fors to Everyone:
Maybe the 035 identifiers?
10:56:22 From Bob Scheier (Holy Cross) to Everyone:
Number 9 is one we would like to have
10:58:48 From jeanette kalchik to Everyone:
Would it only be for first indicator 9 or all system control numbers?
11:00:34 From Lisa English to Everyone:
Thank you.

Transcript

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:02:51
The meeting. Please add, as always, please, add your name to the attendees list.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:02:56
And.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:02:59
I will go by the list of the notetakers. I don't know who's present.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:05
I know, Christine said. She will not be able to attend the meeting. Do we have Amelia.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:13
Bum.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:15
Jackie Jennifer. I'm Jen available.

[Bob Scheier (Holy Cross)] 10:03:20
I could take notes.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:22
Well, thank you, but I appreciate it.

[Kathleen Moore] 10:03:24
Thank you, Bob. I can also be I can try to help take some as well.

[Bob Scheier (Holy Cross)] 10:03:29
Sure.

[Bob Scheier (Holy Cross)] 10:03:30
If you want to do it, that's great, or you want me to do it, or both of us.

[Bob Scheier (Holy Cross)] 10:03:38
Whatever whatever works.

[Kathleen Moore] 10:03:39
Yep, I'm also fine.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:40
Let's go!

[Bob Scheier (Holy Cross)] 10:03:40
Okay.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:41
And let's go by the alphabet. And, Bob, if you are willing to to take the notes. That's

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:50
Please do. And, Kathleen, your general account.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:56
So

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:03:59
I would like to start with the WOLFCon update.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:02
The working group meeting is on the official agenda. It's scheduled for September 24.th

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:11
At 3 30 PM.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:14
And British summertime, which is 5 h ahead of Eastern Standard time.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:22
And the meeting is scheduled for 50 min.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:26
Right now we have a following participants, that

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:34
Express interest in presenting Jeanette.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:36
Jennifer.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:38
Lynn.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:39
And Kathleen and and me will be present as well.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:04:46
Is there anyone else who would like to present their experience in the production.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:05:06
From those who volunteered as presenters.

[Magda Zacharska (EBSCO)] 10:05:12
Will all of you be in London, or will you be joining.

[Jennifer Eustis] 10:05:20
I'll be in London.

[Jennifer Eustis] 10:05:21
This is Jennifer.

[Magda Zacharska (E