2021-05-27 Metadata Management Meeting notes

Philip Schreur / Laura E Daniels

Minutes

A small group of members of this SIG spoke at PC to talk about issues of data integrity issue causing delays of implementations, problems for those that have implement. The request was for an increase of focus on data integrity.

Philip commented that the conversation was interesting to hear it framed as a data integrity issue rather than strictly a data import issue. Philip mentioned Mike Gorrell's idea the reviewing the flow of data is important. 

Documentation Working Group gave an update

Tod Olsen - testing - who is responsible for testing "end to end" workflows.

Khalilah Gambrell gave an update. Kristin brought up the issue of working on new issues vs. working on issues of data integrity. There was a conflict in the discussion as to whether work on new issues would be done or the focus would be on securing the foundation of FOLIO for integrity purposes.

Christie noted that we may be seeing now the limits of the UI driven method of development and documentation. 

Brian asked what exactly the data integrity issues are. Laura acknowledged the importance of this question, but was hesitant to 

Charlotte noted that our data is not in sync across apps and this needs to be solved. She described this as a communication problem and technical hurdle.

Laura clarified that there is no criticism meant towards product owners, but rather that they need more support. 

Patty emphasized that it is the subject matter specialists' job to specify functionality.

Christie - a part of the discussion needs to be "how to we address this issue"? SRS evolved organically. Since SRS did not start out with a UI, it was developed without the input of SMEs. Addressing does not mean we have to completely change the process. 

Laura has found it helpful when Charlotte facilitated conversations between SMEs and developers.

Magda - From a PO point of view, there is more interest in application now because libraries are getting ready to live. This functionality was available many releases earlier, but not tested adequately. If SME's made these discoveries earlier it would have been much more helpful, less expensive.

Laura - finding ways as SMEs where we are finding 

Jason - "It is incredibly hard to put together workflows with a lot of lead time when key components are delayed (aka OCLC)"

Charlotte Whitt

Do we need to consider prioritization for:

UXPROD-1892 which UIIN-340 is part of

Charlotte Whitt

Review UXPROD-1363

The actual deletion function will be in the Action menu. 

Dependency checks for Mark for Deletion? Relevant, yes/no?

There will be dependency checks on the actual deletion action. Right now "Mark for Deletion" is a permission we want to give more people. The actual deletion is envisioned to be at the hand of someone in the library with more permission.

Laura would not expect the dependency checks to happen with just the "Mark for Deletion".  This would make it easier to implement and require less permissions from the users with permissions for this.

Slide

• Adding a field will prompt field to automatically populate with a $a
• Display the last person to update
• Baseline shortcut keys

quickMARC - UXPROD-3075 - fixed in Iris

Authorities - There will be no UI with Juniper - it's all backend

MFHD - Hope is to do this in Kiwi, but progress was delayed.

Ann-Marie (via chat) - "There was additional work for storing authorities to be able to distinguish from SRS MARC Bibs, and make it so that 2 kinds of MARC records could coexist in SRS"

Discussion - SMEs contributing to writing test cases for Test Rails more. 

Demo of Cornell's planned approach until UXPROD-2867 - Getting issue details... STATUS is implemented

(see Alternatives for Features Still in Development)

Felix Hemme

Theodor Tolstoy