2023-06-20 EMWG Meeting


  1. Discussion based on comments added to use case spreadsheet
    1. No new comments entered. UC subgroup work complete.
  2. Visualizing the use cases (Doug)
    1. Miro board : https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVMY-UpWg=/?share_link_id=787270510176
    2. Two views
      1. Top-level: groupings (e.g.: change management, cross app integration, discovery, resource description, manage local data, etc.) Grouped into R1, R2, R3 (color-coded and in separate "rows" with spacing). Categorization within of create, edit, etc.
      2. Consolidated view based primarily on R1, R2, R3. Broken into four categories: planned scope for LC thin thread, aligned with thin thread, tbd/other, partial scope
      3. Creating tight (enough) integration. Comments include Use Case description from spreadsheet
    3. Thoughts
      1. Appreciate. Only thing that could help uninitiated would be inclusion of key for colors, comments, etc. 
      2. Important to have comments on every sticky? Only on deduplicated list (the R1,R2,R3) (+a few)
      3. Can we link rather than copy description into the comment?
      4. Provide at least one link from board to spreadsheet
      5. Useful for overview of timeline in the work - to quickly identify what is new work / what is expected. To demonstrate road map. Can add section on timeline / how milestones line up (+ a few)
      6. Permissions for Miro board and how does one access this?
  3. Libris workflows (Andreas)
    1. Centralized national union catalog - LIBRIS is upstream and pushes data down. Bibliographic descriptions and holdings
    2. Working on proof of concept for fourth generation of discovery based on Libirs
    3. In-house developed services like ILL
    4. Making catalogers lives easier by only describing things once
    5. Libris XL infrastructure based on linked data. Need conversion since no local LMS/LSPs accept RDF
    6. Stored as big graph, JSON-LD. SPARQL endpoint
    7. Formerly had Voyager supporting Libris but now has infrastructure of their own making
    8. Based on BF 2.1 (at the moment) with conversions needed to consume and produce MARC21. Do not use LC conversion
    9. KBV = vocabulary; BF + some extensions (Swedish labels, mapping to other vocabs, adapt as needed)
    10. id.kb.se - can see extensions, mappings, labels
    11. Cataloging interview: web app to administrate bib info, holdings and authorities; an unfiltered window into libris; not a tool for discovery or circulation.
    12. National Library of Sweden using Aleph currently; in process of assessing ILSs for migration
    13. Starting to break-apart and link works starting this summer. Beginning with Swedish fiction. 
    14. KB is part of the BIBFRAME Interoperability Group; need testing to find better ways around getting data between Libris and local environments. Downstream push and upstream write (e.g.: holdings change, etc.). Not sure whether pushing KBV downstream or a conversion to more standard exchange formats (when those are set). Has been part of roadmap on Libris side for a while. Chalmers is only FOLIO partner to currently work with.
    15. Most libraries handle authorities / entity management in Libris... making changes upstream and then those push down to local system
    16. Want to do things in central place rather than in local systems
    17. LibrisXL has been around for five years. Have had catalogers only working in Libris so are completely confused by MARC21 
  4. For next time - how do we move forward?
    1. Paths to move forward
      1. Work not planned for LC and how that might be represented long-term
      2. As EBSCO productionizes things for LC (starting with thin-thread), have discussion with group as to whether there is something in those releases are actionable