2025-10-29 Data Import SIG Meeting Notes
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: @Jennifer Eustis @Katie Rahman @Robert Pleshar @Vivian Gould @Christie Thomas @Yael Hod @Sara Colglazier @Kalvin Van Gaasbeck @Ryan Mendenhall @Kim Wiljanen
Notetaker: @Whitney Christopher , @Autumn Faulkner , @Yael Hod , @Robert Pleshar
Links:
Agenda:
| Item | Notes |
Announcements |
|
|
| Next Meeting | Our next meeting will focus on acquisitions. Will people from Acq SIG join us? Christie posted in their slack channel asking for topics hoping for good crossover. |
|
|
|
Discussion (New Topic or Jira Issue) |
|
|
New Topic | In field mapping profile allow option to add if not a duplicate. (review new topic with a discussion on our process for requesting a new topic) | CT: It has to do with Acq data. We need to load things twice to get all the updates in the right order, for loading shelf ready material we add the invoice # in the admin note. We load once to map the barcode and some other things. Then we load again to set the instance status and the catalog date, and to map the holdings location. Because the invoice # is mapped, and we load twice, we get the admin note twice. We could do two profiles that are identical except the one field. Other fields that are identical don’t duplicate. Can this be added for both stat codes and admin notes. Maybe a drop down in the field mapping profile. JE: on all levels, Instances, holding, and items? CT: yes. We have the invoice numbers ot other info we need in the 980 $z. Other fields get de-duped automatically, or if we could add an action that allows for checking and adding if only not a duplicate. RM: If there documentation for what gets de-duped CT: We had this discussion before about the 856, but I don’t know if there is any documentation. RP: deduping may not work if we are adding a date and then the note since that happens often VG: From a consortium pov, I’d rather have a setting where I can decide on the input rather than having FOLIO decide for me what is always happening. CT: I agree. Sometime we want the extra information but sometimes we have the duplicate info when we don’t need it. JE: I like what Christie proposed. The select action that does exist in the field mapping profiles for holdings. We could have an additional action added
|
| Discussion moved from particular topic to a general discussion on how we want to proceed once we’ve had a discussion | CT: that is a question for the group and part of our discussion on our workflow as a group JE: We should ask for the sun. This would be an epic. The developers would need to decide what to do. VG: we should not limit the scope to a specific field. JE: We should ask for everything so that we have consistency, no matter where you are in your field mapping type. The developers with Ryan will decide how long and how, but we should ask for it all CT: how do we formalize moving from a discussion to the next step. Should we wait for comments from those who couldn’t attend? Should we wait for Ryan to weigh in? How do we have the community approve moving on the next step. JE: We could share the proposal and then in the following meeting create the JIRA. CT: technical council has a similar process with a page with the proposal, place for feedback and then set a date to vote on it as a committee. We could figure out how to include feedback from those who can’t be present. Maybe a lightweight version of the technical council SC: I was going to suggest a similar idea. There is a way to create a JIRA that is not a really a JIRA where people can comment and then depending on the discussion the PO will create the JIRA. Does anyone know about this process? All the information is collected in the right place JE: In the spreadsheet for requesting a new topic, there is an action taken column. Would this be enough? We could replicate what product council is doing CT: can we mock something up for next meeting after the acq meeting and figure out what the right way to do it. Is the PC way enough or do we need something more? Maybe the tech council one is to much? JE: the PC has everything on the Wiki, they evaluate new functionality. I don’t think we need something so intense. If we have our "requesting new functionality” we can open for comments and use this as a way to get input. CT: like the idea of having all the information added to the page, when it was discussed, etc. By having it on its own page, it will be easier to search through than going through meeting minutes. It will also give us a place to collect comments. JE: Maybe we could have a log and having the decisions laid out, it will help us better formulate our MVP for import features as well as our roadmap for the functionality we want to see in FOLIO. CT: I like Sara’s example where you first create a story. Need input from Ryan SC: if you see here, there are comments when the topic was discussed. It took a while before anything happened but all the information was there for them when the topic was picked up. CT: the one concern I have is understanding the context over time if there is a lot of input. JIRA can be overwhelming. Another dashboard is a potential. We could experiment with both. SC: for this type of things the acq sig has added a tag to make it easier to find. JE: I think we need to consult with Ryan to figure out what would be easier For the topic we discussed today, in housekeeping we should come up with a summary to post. Would it make sense to come back to this in two weeks. Then we could revisit - “we made a decision, what do we do now?”. |
|
|
|
Housekeeping |
|
|
| Topic from above |
|
| Get Link to Jira from Discussion on 2025-10-15 | Log UI Enhancements:
|
| Actions/Decisions Needed | To do Create summary of topic to share on slack. Revisit topic in two weeks with Ryan before creating the JIRA |
Roadmap Discussion (At same time of a new release) |
|
|
MVP Discussion (at the same time of a new release) |
|
|