2025-12-17 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: @Katie Rahman @Christie Thomas @Jennifer Eustis @Lynne Fors @Robert Pleshar @Ryan Taylor
Notetaker: @Whitney Christopher , @Autumn Faulkner , @Yael Hod , @Robert Pleshar

Links:

Agenda:

	Item	Notes
Announcements
	https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/PC/pages/1466762192/PROPOSAL+FOLIO+Community+Calendar+Calming+Planning+2026?atl_p=eyJpIjoiODA0MTk0ZGQtMzVkZS02MmViLTYyMzMtMzNmOTI1YzI2Mjc5IiwidCI6ImNhcmRUaXRsZSIsInNvdXJjZSI6ImVtYWlsIiwiZSI6ImNjLW5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbnNfZGlnZXN0X3VwZGF0ZV92MiJ9
Initial Review of Solution	https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODDATAIMP-1237 https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DD/pages/1778826 https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DD/pages/1778826/3.+Modify+MARC_BIB#id-3.ModifyMARC_BIB-:~:text=5.%20Match%20and%20update%20MARC%20Bib%2C%20holdings%20%2B%20modify%20MARC%20Bib%20(Available%20since%20Trillium)
Discussion (New Topic or Jira Issue)
Meeting Cadence	We still need to work through our process with our work. Questions: We initially wanted to look at a new requested topic and review an existing Jira issue in meetings. Proposal: We’d like to alternate so that there is one discussion topic. If we alternate, and a discussion isn’t finished in the time allotted, then do we continue the discussion in the next meeting or in the next alternate meeting? For example, the SIG discusses a Jira issue that needs to be reviewed and needs more time. We finish that discussion in 2 weeks. We add times to the discussion sections. Announcements 5-10, Discussion 25-30, Housekeeping/Next Agenda 15-20 minutes Based on our answers: where do people want to start today?	CT: Let topics take the time they take - circle back and dot I’s Can we make looking at this together part of our housekeeping checklist? This would slow us down but be more sustainable. JE: Would prefer finishing one topic before moving on to others. Community should have a say, whether synchronous or asynchronous. JE: Alternating weeks with lab? RP: May need to pivot to “emergency” topic. JE/CT: We can and will have to do this. CT: Reflect on how to do this. Action: We are going to give it a try. Alternating sig and lab, lab will move to Wednesdays at Sig meeting time. LF: We will need to inform people of the move for data lab. JE: Will create a decision log and get feedback. CT: Leave feedback period open through Jan. (Jan 7 is deadline). Jan 7 Sig meeting and include this change in agenda. Action: Start with Sig Jan 7, Labs alternating weeks, will use this Zoom link. Keep Thursdays in reserve.
Issue needs review	https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/MODINV-799. This was just taken on by Thunderjet in sprint 232 for Trillium release.
Requested Feature: Update instance, holdings, and item in reverse order.	From Request: “Right now the instance, holdings, and item must be updated in that order. It is also not possible to update an item independently and then, in the same job, match and update the instance and holdings. When updating all three records as a part of a shelf ready workflow, integrations (FOLIO app and external) require that the barcode be added to the item before the holdings record is updated. We need to be able to match and instance, holdings, and item (in that order) and then update the item, holdings, and instance or the item, instance, holdings in either of those orders. Error message from import in Poppy: io.vertx.core.json.DecodeException: Failed to decode:Cannot deserialize value of type `java.util.LinkedHashMap<java.lang.Object,java.lang.Object>` from Array value (token `JsonToken.START_ARRAY`) at [Source: (String)"[{"id":"babefda2-17c3-4ff2-a677-f469c1b7bb59","_version":3,"hrid":"13642832","holdingsTypeId":"0c422f92-0f4d-4d32-8cbe-390ebc33a3e5","formerIds":[],"instanceId":"1980ec39-2d53-42d9-839b-d4d080850c76","permanentLocationId":"fad8517a-aae4-5b69-855e-01843e6e4d88","effectiveLocationId":"fad8517a-aae4-5b69-855e-01843e6e4d88","electronicAccess":[],"callNumberTypeId":"95467209-6d7b-468b-94df-0f5d7ad2747d","callNumber":"PL2260.52.B536A5 2019","notes":[],"holdingsStatements":[],"holdingsStatementsForInde"[truncated 371 chars]; line: 1, column: 1]""
Housekeeping
	Refinement of qualifiers working document and https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-5669 .	Check-in on this work in lab. Discussed match criterion and qualifier overlap. RT: As of now, only exactly matches works as a match criterion. JE: We probably want it to only exactly match if we have qualifiers and can only compare part of the value RT: Has been wanting to get to the bottom of this for a long time. No one seems to know why we have this dropdown for match criterion. Action: Adjust qualifiers to come up with something similar to Alma documentation: https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/040Resource_Management/060Record_Import/020Managing_Import_Profiles?mt-draft=true#Match_Methods_.E2.80.93_Explanations_and_Examples Action RT: Adjust UXPROD-5669 to remove dropdown and make “exactly matches” the only criterion.

Next Agenda
	https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DISIG/pages/1441464322	Topics: Reconifiguring of meeting schedule - discussion Revision of existing issues for 856/Electronic Access
Roadmap Discussion (At same time of a new release)
MVP Discussion (at the same time of a new release)

Upcoming meetings/agenda topics: --

Chat: