Archive MM SIG Parking Lot (past topics)
- Raegan Wiechert
- Felix Hemme
Status
DONE Topic is discussed, ticket is created and development is completed
WON'T DO Topic is discussed in SIG, won't be developed, no further actions to follow
FORWARDED Topic will be picked up by another group (please add which one)
| Topic | Status | Description | Date added | Provided by Name, Institution | Interested parties Name, Institution | Jira | Has been discussed in meeting (add link) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Record management Discovery | WON'T DO outdated- no longer needs to be discussed | referential cataloging (= copy cataloging): what would this mean for discovery? for local edits to cataloging records? for vendor-supplied cataloging or shelfready services? We need to talk through these types of issues, but maybe not until after v1. (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017) Nov. 15, 2018 update: wait until post Chalmers | 2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic. 2023-01-26 from meeting: This topic no longer needs to be discussed (change in model). | |||||
| Authority management | FORWARDED EMWG | authority control: how does this fit with FOLIO, with the codex, discovery, local inventory (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017)
|
| 2023-01-18: EMWG active again since 2022. 2023-02-02: will discuss as needed; have other groups present as needed | ||||
Record management Discovery | WON'T DO No longer needs to be discussed | Discovery comes from where? Inventory? Other apps? What is role of MarcCat? For example, do we need the ability to mark a record as suppressed from public display in MarcCat? (Laura W., Sept 12, 2018) Update, Oct. 15: discovery should be coming, initially, from the Marc Storage "blob." Oct 15: Question for Laura from A-M. Just saw this note. The MARC storage is just MARC data, so it seems like we still have a question of whether there is a way to indicate a record should not be pushed out for discovery - in Inventory? in MARCcat? Seems like Inventory would be the place for it since MARCcat doesn't necessarily know about all the instances in Inventory. Then when whatever service goes to harvest the MARC data for pushing out to Discovery, it maybe 1) starts with Inventory to know what it should be trying to push out to discovery, 2) then grabs MARC storage data for anything that it's supposed to, 3) creates MARC on the fly (but does not store) from the Inventory record for anything that is supposed to go to discovery that does not have underlying MARC. Would be great to discuss at an upcoming MM SIG meeting. | UXPROD-993 Closed → Done | 2023-01-18: Do we have a working solution now that libraries are live with FOLIO and Discovery systems or should we revisit this topic? 2023-01-26 from meeting: This question no longer needs to be discussed as written. If needed in the future, question/topic needs to be re-written. There is a group that is working on the bigger picture of this. | ||||
| Training | FORWARDED Service providers, docs.folio.org, support SIG etc. | Training sessions, e.g. CQL, SQL, Postman, others? what needs/use cases are each tool best for? | 2023-01-18: Do people feel confident about using FOLIO with the documentation at docs.folio.org and the community (Slack etc.)? Or do we have to provide more support as a SIG? 2023-02-02: Provide as needed; Reporting SIG has been doing trainings on some of these topics, recordings are on the Wiki | |||||
| MARC search | DONE | Demo of MARC SRS Search API: UXPROX-2916. This is ranked as R1 for many libraries. It would be great to learn what has been done, what work is scheduled, plans for future development including a demo. (Jennifer E.: June 10, 2021) | UXPROX-2916 | 2023-02-16 Metadata Management Meeting notes | ||||
| MARC mapping | DONE | Default mapping of MARC to Inventory Records: Behavior after migration "I don't want to take us back to the previous discussion and derail this one, but I'm curious about expected behavior for changing the default mapping for MARC records to inventory records. When we change, do we expect that all of the existing records in inventory would be retroactively updated from the MARC store? What would that do to system performance while it's happening? It might be a non-issue for the developers, I just wanted to bring it up so we can make sure it gets thought through." - Dennis Christman (posted in MM SIG meeting chat on 2/7/2019) | 2023-03-02 Metadata Management Meeting notes | 2023-01-18: With the development and refinement of the Data Import app, is this still a relevant topic to revisit? wouldn't re-indexing be the way to make such changes to existing data? (Laura D.) 2023-01-19 during meeting:
| ||||