2023-02-22 quickMARC subgroup

Announcements

All

• Supporting the Michigan State community

• Authority upgrades challenges  (Morning Glory and Nolana)

  • PERF-456: Update MARC authority records is too slowClosedPreview'

  • Long-term solution feature (Poppy) UXPROD-4082: Long term solution for applying mapping rules change to authority records that exist in database. ClosedPreview

  • Will not be an issue for Orchid 

Development updates

Khalilah

Sprint Board: https://folio-org.atlassian.net/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=40

Browse by call number type requirements review 

Christine

PPT slide deck

• UI Considerations: Leaning towards approach 1 - adding new browse options as opposed to another facet. This would reduce repeated clicking 

• Other scheme:

  • Yes, default null call number type values to "Other scheme"

  • Action item: Bring up the grouping of call number types not on the fixed list in MM SIG meeting. It is possible that we would not want to group these values under "Other scheme", particularly for "LC Modified"

Authority linking - Subjects - handling sub-division questions 

Khalilah 

• Q1. Should 650s' subfield v, x, y, z be controlled? 

Original authority record questions

Christine

Questions discussed in meeting:

1. When a local authority record is created from existing non-local record, are the existing control number fields removed (such as the 010)?  Initial thoughts are that if the record was to be considered separate from the non-local record, the control number fields would be removed

Questions to think about/revisit at another meeting:

1. When adding local information/making modificatoins to non-local authority records, which is the more common use case:

   1. Edit original non-local record and add local terms

      1. Are these records differentiated from unmodified non-local records?

   2. Copy original record, save as local record, add local terms

   3. Copy original record, save as a local record, remove existing headings and replace with local heading

2. Create upon import: Is it okay for now if new imported local authority records just have the 001 retained, as in current state? 

   1. This would mean, if we wanted to add the record to an authority file source, we'd need to add the prefix prior to import, or it would map to the "Not specified" authority file. Initial thoughts are that this would be okay for now.