2019-08-01 Metadata Management Meeting notes

This morning's meeting was spent on a presentation to request to build a community of builders. The testing has been product owners. The idea is to have a crowd sourced testing community. They are looking for manual testing to find bugs before releases. They would like anyone to volunteer for testing for up to a year. This includes testing integrations, APIs, etc. They are searching to have names by mid-August to get the testers trained for the upcoming release of Daisy.

The capacity planning resulted in new fields in JIRA. They are trying to better reflect issues that have come up in relation especially in reporting. This work is going well around capacity planning.

There was a debrief on the stakeholders meeting in Germany. There was MVP planning, state of the budget, resources, need for documentation. Harry Kaplanian gave presentations on the state of the project. Budget resourcing needs were also discussed.

A group will be formed to discuss sustainable business models. WOLFCON has designated the official open foundation projects. There might also be a need for informal meetings. The dates for WOLFCON are out 1/20-24 in 2020. This might overlap with ALA MidWinter.

We do have a need for a documentation editor/czar.

We had talked a couple of weeks ago about new features a regular part of these meetings. Charlotte sent out 2 messages this morning. These are now on the agenda, see below. This will be added going forward. If you didn't get the messages, make sure you are subscribed to the Metadata Management mailing list.

Subgroup:

Data Import: The small group is not meeting right now. Ann Marie has been working through the comments on the default MARC Bib-Inventory Instance mapping to have it finished by the end of next week.

Data Export: Magda is the new PO for this group. Anne-Marie and Magda have met and gone through all of the open Jiras regarding data export. This is in the early stage of gathering requirements. A subgroup would be beneficial with about 5-6 people that meets weekly. If you are interested, contact Laura. The subgroup should be diverse. As we discussed in batch editing, if we have only basic features on day 1, good export and import features are needed.

From Charlotte:

We have split UXPROD-1420 "Cleanup work on the Instance Record + look up feature, and new component" into six features, and we'll need the libraries to rank each feature:

UXPROD-1889 Instance: Delete warning when deleting format or contributor type

UXPROD-1890 Instance: Additional controlled vocabularies for Instance menus

UXPROD-1891 Instance: Lookup by code (contributor type, resource type and format)

UXPROD-1892 Instance: Add related instances data element

UXPROD-1893 Instance: Implement preceding and succeeding titles

UXPROD-1894 Settings > Inventory > Instance: Implement format category

We have split UXPROD-1880 "Cleanup work on the Item Record" into three features, and we'll need the libraries to rank each feature:

UXPROD-1922 Item. Easy copy of barcode and make barcode a link in item list

UXPROD-1923 Settings > Inventory > Item: Implement material type category

UXPROD-1924 Item. Copy is not a repeatable element

Please take a look, and add your institutions new ranking of each of the features above.

https://folio-project.slack.com/archives/C20V5L40P/p1563288904116100

For clarification, all but a few administrative metadata fields are now "frozen" in the Instance record when there is an underlying source record.

The freeze has been enacted. If there is source data underlying an instance record, several records are locked for editing. This applies to any underlying source record. Right now, these are only MARC.

From chat:

From Felix Hemme to Everyone: (12:20 PM)


Hi @Ann-Marie: What causes the records in the Inventory to be blocked from editing? Is the existence of an SRS record necessary for this? Or is this dependend on the "metadata source" element?


From Anne-Marie to Everyone: (12:28 PM)

Hi Felix - Yes, that's right: Metadata source in the Instance = MARC. The exact fields that are restricted down are hard coded. The only fields that can be edited are 1) Suppress from discovery, 2) Staff suppress, 3) Previously held, 4) Instance Status, 5) Mode of issuance, 6) Add statistical code


MARC Creation and Editing

If you are not using MARC, please note this as well. If you haven't filled this out, please fill this out. This will help with ranking and prioritization.

Could this analysis be applied to those using UNIMARC? Everything has been focused around MARC21. But there are countries that use UNIMARC. This hasn't been prioritized yet in FOLIO as with other metadata formats.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VTRg7CmF_UeZOqp62NVAhDsmqNn4-fqL4N-aH4phSx0/edit#gid=0

It looks like what we prefer to do is in the FOLIO environment. The workaround for most of these cases are to export and import metadata. Some use cases didn't seem that would be met by the workaround.

• Suppress: We need to add some functionality to import and export for this.
• Authority records: This can be handled by an export and import.  This is updating access points in bib records.

How do we export and import order records? The use case is update fund for a set of orders. Right now, there is no way to import and export order records. How do you search for these types of criteria for order records? We need to make sure that our searching is robust enough for these types of searches.

Often the search is based on a file of record numbers and you want to run a batch on those. This would be to create a set by uploading a file with system numbers.

Tiziana also had questions about Unimarc. There is a library in Florence that is Unimarc. Tiziana will need to follow up with Charlotte about this, and will need to create some Jira tickets specifically addressing Unimarc.

Multiple Graphical Representations

Note: Charlotte has added following feature description (UXPROD) in Jira: 

UXPROD-1646 - Getting issue details... STATUS

Christie expressed hesitation about being too prescriptive about what the JSON should look like. She suggested spending time on the Functional Requirements. Suggestions for additional functional requirements were added to the Google doc: DRAFT - Multiple graphical representations in FOLIO. (Also linked above.) 

The group also would like to make recommendations as to what this should look like in the FOLIO interface. Example systems that work well?

https://wiki.folio.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=78336464

VZG

Stanford

Index Data