| | | |
|---|
| General updates | All | New member: Miklos Lendvay, National Library of Hungary; they will be implementing FOLIO next year. Karen has submitted proposed sessions for the F2F meeting
|
| Forum for practical implementation questions | @Siska | Siska asked what the best place will be to address practical implementation questions Her experience has been that it's difficult to coordinate with all the SIGs on these types of questions – a central forum would be more efficient. The group agreed that this group could be a forum for some of these types of questions, though there's some feeling that we might skew a little more high-level. Broader, more philosophical questions might be a better fit for the group calls. We should think about documentation and how to start documenting questions that get answered so they don't get lost in Slack. We would like to have an FAQ page for each major topic area where we could document questions and answers addressed by this group. There is already a page that might be a starting point: Information and User Guides for FOLIO Apps We could use Discuss to ask questions and hash to answers, then transfer the answers to the wiki page. We can firm up this discussion over the next few weeks and decide how to move forward.
|
| Title-level vs. item-level holds | @Siska | From Siska: We have title level holds now and are a bit worried how it will work after migrating when only being able to have item level holds. What are your plans for holds/recalls after migration? I am especially interested in title on high demand. There is a worry that the queuing for high-demand titles won't be fair because availability will be based on which item the person happened to place the hold on. This is a true go-live requirement for Chalmers. Title-level holds are scheduled for Q2:  UXPROD-1061: Title-Level Requests (Basic)ClosedPreview It's unclear whether the issue as described meets all of Chalmers' needs.
|
| Voyager subgroup? | @Jenn Colt | From Jenn: I was hoping to see if the group was okay with hanging a Voyager working group off the group's wiki page (Jesse emailed about this). If it doesn't seem overly controversial, I can go ahead and start the page and we could discuss more another week. We're agreed that it's useful to have wiki pages and Slack channels for different migration paths, regardless of whether the groups actively meet as subgroups. We might want them to bring some ideas to the main group – e.g., for processes that a particular system encourages, but could be useful across the board. @Karen Newbery will add a top level wiki page where we can hang a page for each system.
|
| Multi-tenant environment | @Lendvay Miklós | Hungary would like to have a multi-tenant environment where each tenant has its choice of modules. Is there any information about how multi-tenancy will work in FOLIO and whether this can be done? The Consortia SIG meets Wednesdays at 9 a.m. Eastern time: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/wiki/display/CONSORT/ That group has had a lot of discussions about multi-tenancy and how it might work FLO is also interested in a multi-tenant implementation. They are planning to implement in separate tenants and work on cross-tenant functionality later. Hungary has needs for complex functionality, even with apps – e.g., allowing scientists to edit inventory records. How can they modify existing apps while still making sure things work together?
|