2024-04-19 Meeting notes
Date
Apr 19, 2024
Participants
@Laura E Daniels
@Chris Long
@Martin Scholz
@Adam Cottle
@Nancy Lorimer
@Tara Barnett
@Andreas Mace
@Wayne Schneider
@Robert Roose
Mollie Coffey
@Jenn Colt
Goals
Notes
Review of previous work done by the Entity Management Working Group
Discussion about the work of the EMWG and whether any of that group’s recommendations are or should be implemented in current FOLIO developments.
The Entities App never had a developer assigned to it, and the MARC Authority App was developed separately with no “cross-fertilization” between the two.
FOLIO community thus far has been focused on a MARC-related app, while the EMWG also considered linked data approaches.
The focus of the second iteration of the EMWG was intended to inform the development needed to integrate LC MARVA editor and LC workflows into FOLIO.
EBSCO’s development of MARC Authorities App is incorporating some features envisioned for the Entities App.
Work from EMWG use cases would be valuable for this group to look at.
Addressing multiple linked data needs within the FOLIO community
The FOLIO community has a very heterogeneous constituent base in terms of institution size, needs, and globality, and constituents have many different needs. The FOLIO community has been very North American-centric and we need to figure out how to accommodate all views and needs.
All participants in the community should have an opportunity to voice their respective needs. Community input on linked data requirements is especially needed to inform EBSCO’s developments of our requirements
There is a tension between what libraries need to implement FOLIO now, which for most libraries in North America are primarily MARC-based solutions and will continue to be for a long time, while also contemplating future non-MARC needs.
It was noted that institutions throughout the world use MARC differently. Many librarians want to transition away from MARC, but in North America it was recognized that there will be an extended period of MARC dependency in which most libraries continue to work primarily with it and convert it to BIBFRAME. This, however, is not the case in other parts of the world.
This begs the question, should we build a model that requires MARC, which is what EBSCO is doing?
FOLIO needs to be able to meet the needs of LC, which will be a major producer of linked data, as well as other libraries that will be primarily consumers of linked data and not large producers. The production mindset is driving a lot of the development being done for LC.
Exporting and Publishing Linked Data
There also needs to be a focus on data publishing as well as production.
Possible future development – how to get linked data out of Inventory? It was suggested that no such development is currently being done, although it was pointed out that Sinopia has a direct export to Inventory feature, where BF could be the SRS version. However, those exports are bound by Stanford’s templates, so some common template would be needed.
Should there be a FOLIO pool of multilingual LD descriptions? It is hoped that we can move away from the model of each librayr having their own local linked data store.
Source of Truth
In some European library, the source of truth has nothing to do with FOLIO; source records aren’t stored in FOLIO at all, source-of-truth bib record is stored elsewhere.
German libraries work with a “shallow” copy of the bib record from the national union catalog to work with locally as FOLIO Instance data only, not stored locally in SRS.
Future Meeting Topic and Actions
Demos of linked data editors – MARVA, Sinopia, J.Cricket – including where is the data stored, what are the workflows, what are the challenges encountered?
Review Inventory data model to see if it can be used to export linked data
· Are there gaps in the model?
· Stanford will discuss their mapping process for linked data export, including the pain points
Review EMWG use cases
Refine WOLFCon proposal if accepted
Discussion topics
Time | Item | Presenter | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |