eHoldings subgroup

2024-03-13

2024-03-13 Agenda and Meeting notes

Introduction/kickoff of subgroup

2024-04-10

2024-04-10 Agenda and Meeting notes

Implementers Topics # 1

2024-05-8

2024-05-8 Agenda and Meeting notes

Implementaters Topics # 6

2024-06-5

2024-06-5 Agenda and Meeting notes

Implementers Topics # 2 and 5

2024-07-31

2024-07-31 Agenda and Meeting notes

Implementers Topic #7

2024-08-28

2024-09-11 Agenda and Meeting notes

Implementers Topic #6 and 8

Two additional agreements’ metadata fields to display on the eHoldings' app Agreements accordion

6

As an ERM librarian using the eHoldings app, I want to be able to see additional details about a selected Package or Title’s linked Agreement.
I would also want to see if the associated Agreement is perpetual access (is perpetual Agreement field) and if it has a linked License record (if yes, then include the name of the license and a link to that License record).
Knowing what titles or packages have perpetual access in eHoldings is helpful for knowing whether individual titles within need to have their coverage dates checked or customized to match what is entitled, Knowing if an agreement/eholdings package has a license attached to it and if so, being able to access it easily, provides a direct route to verifying perpetual access terms, and other relevant information such as entitlement lists, license terms, and license documents. It would also facilitate setting up and maintaining the license term integration between FOLIO and Publication Finder.

2024/04/8

Zorian Sasyk

Discussed on 9/11/24

UIEH-1418: Two additional agreements’ metadata fields to display on the eHoldings' app Agreements accordionDraft

Further discussion required

eHoldings package/title view: display Proxied URL from HoldingsIQ/HLM

5

As an ERM librarian using the eHoldings app, I want to be able to see the proxied URL of a selected Package and/or Title as a label within the Package and/or Title record.

2024/4/8

Zorian Sasyk

https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UIEH-1419

In Progress, on track for Ransoms

Agreement line search for eHoldings packages: search by package or title name

3

See this discussion on Slack: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1712087539800349

2024/3/8

Zorian Sasyk

Discussed in meeting on 3/13

Communications in progress

Usage Consolidation integration: populating cost per use with information from Order or Invoice Line records

2

2024/3/8

Zorian Sasyk

Discussed on 6/5

UIEH-1388: Incorporating cost or price information from FOLIO acquisitions records (Orders and/or Invoices)Draft

Discussed, more user stories required

FOLIO Agreements & AGLs - eHoldings - HLM: source of truth ?! / linking and unlinking

1

Working between 2 systems (FOLIO & HLM) and within FOLIO between 2 Apps, can lead to actions (manual and system-based) in one to have unintended consequences in the others (e.g, “zombie” AGLs are esp. frustrating, OR that you can unintentionally delete things entirely from one in the other). Also it is frustrating that one cannot UNlink an e-resource in an AGL and either not link it at all again or then link it to a different e-resource as needed.

2024/03/8

Sara Colglazier

Changing language of Align modal User Story: UIEH-1420: Agreements accordion - Revise Are you sure you want to unassign agreement? messageClosed

Complete, included in Quesnalia

EBSCO HLM functionality brought forward to FOLIO

4

Currently, we have to log into EBSCOadmin to select features such as Visibility Settings: Hide/exclude all titles in the Package

  In Publication Finder

  In Full Text Finder Resolver

  MARC Export

Possible to bring this feature into FOLIO?

2024/03/13

Liisa Mobley (Cornell)

Searching in eHoldings

7

Searching in eHoldings currently works fairly opaquely, and often search results do not match the same search performed in HLM. It is not entirely clear how results are sorted, and there is some amount of apparent lemmatization that happens, but exactly what are the triggers for it are not obvious.

Also, as far as I know, there is no way to do an exact search in eHoldings. This creates situations where I have to scroll through multiple pages to find a result that exactly matches what I searched, while records with much less in common with my search terms appear before it.

I do not know how much of this is an issue of development that needs to be done vs documentation that needs to be written to make things clearer.

2024/4/18

Clara Marino (Amherst College)

In progress, will require some backend work

Should it be possible to have multiple AGLs for the same resource (title/package|platform combo entity linked from eHoldings) in the same/single Agreement

8

(Copied from ERM Implementers list, dates from 2020) After discovering that inadvertently an extra AGL had been added to an Agreement from eHoldings causing an unwanted dupe entry in the Agreement–but which is NOT obvious or in any way noticeable once it has been done from eHoldings and very difficult to detect in the Agreement since the entries do not show following each other and the Agreement has many many lines (+100)–I wondered whether this should even be possible (slack posting: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603474359024000 )

In response, Owen countered that one may want multiple AGLs for the same title entity when needing to link them to separate POLs over time (since AGLs may be date limited); but also suggested thinking about:

• How we can reduce the likelihood of this happening by accident (e.g. warning that there is already an AL for this resource)

• How we can make it more obvious to the user in eHoldings that there are multiple Agreement Lines (within a single agreement)

• Making it more obvious to the user in Agreements that there are multiple Agreement Lines for the same resource within a single Agreement

(see Owen's initial and following responses to Sara's slack query: https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C9ER2HCRY/p1603710981024800?thread_ts=1603474359.024000&cid=C9ER2HCRY )

Question for discussion: to be able to dupe add or not? And if, to be able, then how to address making it obvious

2024-08-27 (originally from 2020-10-26)

Zorian/Sara Colglazier

Within title list view of package record, show managed or custom coverage of titles

9

A title's coverage dates is one of the factors for librarians use to decide whether a package containing the title should be activated or not in knowledgebases. If a journal does not have coverage dates, librarians typically decide not to use the package as this usually indicates it is not updated properly.  

10/22/24

Zorian from UIEH backlog

To be discussed

Within title list view of package record, ability to sort titles by selection status, a-z order

10

As a librarian
I want to easily find selected titles
AND not sift through a slew of titles
So I can find the titles I want to update quickly.

Requirement

• Primary Sort: Sort titles to display selected titles first then non-selected titles

• Secondary Sort: Sort titles in alpha-numeric order

• If primary and secondary sorting is not possible then by default apply the Holding status = Selected filter

Acceptance criteria

Given I am on a Package record

When I view the titles accordion
Then display Holding status - Selected first

Given I am on a Package record

10/22/24

Zorian Sasyk from UIEH backlog

UIEH-1036: Package record | Titles Accordion | Change Titles display orderClosed
https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UIEH-1034