Ann-Marie showed new functionality in Inventory. Tags are now available in all three record types in Inventory
Comment from Jennifer Eustis (via chat) - "In addition to tags, it would be really great to have reporting codes across FOLIO to be used with apps. Such a controlled list could be good for reporting purposes."
Tags will be part of Iris and can be looked at on the test environment
Reporting codes will be discussed at a later date.
Questions and issues to consider (from a previous Product Council conversation):
How does FOLIO attract libraries to the community if there is no internal working MARC cataloging tool? If there was not a full MARC cataloging tool in FOLIO, what does that do to the adoptability of FOLIO?
Some are editing in consortial systems and moving data in/out of FOLIO, and not storing MARC in FOLIO
Some are editing in OCLC and importing/exporting, with QM for small updates
Others?
To date, only 4 libraries are requiring MARC Holdings, and resources haven’t been allocated to that development work yet
If more resources need to be put into a MARC cataloging tool in FOLIO, what areas get set aside or delayed due to resource constraints?
MM SIG needs to make recommendations to the PC. Three record types expected to be edited in MarcCat:
Bibliographic (will not be connected in Iris, maybe Juniper)
Authority - can search, create, update records, not yet connected to SRS
Holdings - no work has been done
What are libraries doing without MarcCat?
Libraries like Chalmers are using consortial records that are brought into FOLIO. They do not need cataloging support. They are using an external system
Libraries are planning on doing cataloging mainly outside of FOLIO, using MarcEdit and OCLC's Connexion. QuickMARC for small edits.
Authority can be stored outside of FOLIO. Inventory is not working with authority at all.
Chat comments:
Which FOLIO Environment should we use for MARCcat testing? Didn’t Scanbit do a demo of Search on Authority data?
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:15 PM Can we export Holdings to MARC holdings including the LDR and other granular data? I thought the mapping deprecated that aspect.
From Jessica Janecki to Everyone: 12:18 PM Even though we are going to be doing original cataloging in OCLC, we still need something more robust than quickmarc for various kinds of local editing, data clean up, and the occasional boutique management of small batches of records.
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:18 PM I agree, Jessica.
From Jessica Janecki to Everyone: 12:18 PM We do a lot of holdings record editing!
From Natascha Owens to Everyone: 12:18 PM At UChicago a group of us recently realized that we may not be able to import a MARC record that is created as a local save file in OCLC Connexion which will be problematic for some of our workflows that rely on that functionality. So I agree with Jessica--not having a more robust MARC cataloging option within FOLIO is a bit worrisome.
From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone: 12:19 PM What happened to the potential connection between FOLIO and MarcEdit?
From Jessica Janecki to Everyone: 12:19 PM We also need to be able to import records from the OCLC save file. (we=Duke)
From Lloyd (Marmot Office) to Everyone: 12:20 PM Maybe we could create a plugin for MarcEdit, so we don't need Terry's cooperation.
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:20 PM MARCedit also doesn't currently work for Holdings or Authorities. It isn't really a cataloging tool so much as a data clean-up/normalization tool.
From Raegan Wiechert to Everyone: 12:21 PM It is possible to import records from your save file. I do it all the time. From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:22 PM UMass has no plans to use marccat. We’ll be batch importing from our save file in Connexion and we’ll be using MarcEdit.
From Kelly Drake to Everyone: 12:23 PM Have to also consider the existing implemented libraries that are treading water while waiting for marccat!
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:23 PM We are not planning to have MARC holdings either
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:25 PM Raegan, we also use MARCedit for batch clean-up before loading records.
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:26 PM There’s an OCLC plug in for MarcEdit. It passes records between MarcEdit and your OCLC save file. All updates done in MarcEdit get synced with your save file and you’re good to go. Then you can import from your save file.
From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone: 12:26 PM Terry was looking for feedback on an update for that functionality which is more robust now that in the past.
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:27 PM Yes, the Connexion plugin for MarcEdit is pretty great ;) I like it
From Jesse Lambertson to Everyone: 12:28 PM Also, the OCLC metadata API can work with marcedit
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:28 PM ^^^ Yes!
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:29 PM I need to look at the OCLC/MARCedit APIs again. :)
From Kyle Banerjee to Everyone: 12:29 PM 'm happy to reach out to Terry if the API is stable -- we go back a long way and have worked together on all kinds of stuff. But integration is a slippery concept so we need to articulate our vision of what success looks like both so he knows what to do, but also so we can explain how it could work so he doesn't need to embark on a research project to find out
From Jesse Lambertson to Everyone: 12:29 PM @Kyle, yeah, I talked to him last year about this too, so it will be good to see how he feels about this now
Tiziana Possemato - Their current efforts (at at Cult) has been on the front end. One possible solution is to concentrate efforts on the backend. One of their customers is using WeCat with FOLIO - another possible solution?
Comments in response to Tiziana's comment in chat:
From Jessica Janecki to Everyone: 12:33 PM It seems like the absolutely most important thing is to get MARCat working with SRS. If it doesn't work with SRS then we can't use it at all.
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:33 PM +1 Jessica
From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone: 12:33 PM +1 Jessica
From Patricia Ratkovich to Everyone: 12:34 PM +1 Patricia
Harry asked, how would a library get WeCat running. Tiziana - They are working on a solution. There is a charge for WeCat right now. They are trying to make WeCat available for free for the FOLIO community
Chat:
From Lloyd (Marmot Office) to Everyone: 12:42 PM The trouble with a plugin is that sometimes a MarcEdit update will break the plugin. City of Telluride has a MarcEdit plugin for processing vendor records. Every few years Terry creates an upgrade that won't work with their plugin, so they can't upgrade until they fix the plugin. They are now working on an independent app.
From Catherine Smith to Everyone: 12:42 PM Can someone clarify for me-- is the issue with MARCcat on the front-end, at the connection to SRS, or both?
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:42 PM Yes, when the subgroup initially looked at WeCat, it was looking very good, but we should take a look at each suggestion again.
From Kyle Banerjee to Everyone: 12:42 PM Even with awesome cataloging functionality, the integration strikes me as the real challenge
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:43 PM WeCat seems like one of the easiest ways to move forward, since it is already in use in a MARC cataloging community.
+1 Laura
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:43 PM @Lloyd it’s beneficial to wait a bit sometimes for MarcEdit updates, but I’ve never had a big problem with the plugin for Connexion
Jessica stated the basic need of making a lot of edits to a MARC record in FOLIO. Harry - QuickMARC is good for basic edits and only works with bibliographic records.
From Mark Arnold to Everyone: 12:45 PM QuickMARC also does not do any validation.
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:46 PM And not every field is available to edit in QuickMARC.
From Catherine Smith to Everyone: 12:46 PM UA would not consider using QuickMARC with no validation.
Suggestion: Create a list with needs and options
Which type of records are the highest priority?
What type of functionality are we asking for: editing, creation?
(Note Charlotte's comment below that many features are already available in a UXPROD so we're not starting from scratch)
Chat:
From Catherine Smith to Everyone: 12:46 PM UA would not consider using QuickMARC with no validation.
From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone: 12:47 PM A lot of work has already been fleshed out in UXPROD features
From Jessica Janecki to Everyone: 12:48 PM We still need to be able to search on marc fields that don't make it into inventory.
From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone: 12:48 PM So maybe start updating this, and not start from scratch
From Laura Daniels (she|her) to Everyone: 12:49 PM Charlotte, I could export the relevant UXPROD features to start
From Kyle Banerjee to Everyone: 12:53 PM Anything that integrates with SRS needs to be able to natively decode and rebuild the object in addition to creating the FOLIO parsed representation
Ann Kardos - At UMASS they are coming up with other tools to replace an internal cataloging tool. They are finding they do not need.
Jessica - The integration with SRS seems to be the hurdle.
Harry - Close to a point where API's needed, exist. Rapidly approaching the point where we should be integrating with external sources.
From Ann Kardos (she/her) to Everyone: 12:54 PM Why not Jacquie? What if being philosophically different opens amazing possibilities?
From Jacquie Samples to Everyone: 12:54 PM SRS existed when the MARCcat subgroup was active.
Chat:
From Charlotte Whitt to Everyone: 12:57 PM IMHO I think it will be a limitation for FOLIO’s possibility to be widely implemented if we don’t have a complete cataloguing module
Many people agreed with Charlotte's comment that future libraries won't look at FOLIO without a cataloging module.
Contact Laura if you would like to be part of drawing up the document of needs and wants of libraries.