2017-06-01 Metadata Management Meeting Notes

Owned by Lynn Whittenberger
Last updated: Jul 26, 2018 by Charlotte Whitt

Date

Attendees

Goals

  • Review updated metadata model
  • Add to use case document

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
 Greetings from the new MM SIG convener Lynn Whittenberger

Lynn W. is our new convener of the MM-SIG. She works at NCSU Libraries, as Associate Head of Acquisition and Discovery (Monographs).

Updates on future meeting schedule: no meetings 6/15 & 7/6 due to vacations.

Call for a volunteer to submit brief reports of MM SIG activities/update to the weekly OLE Project Report (Holly Mistlebauer). Send an email to Lynn W. if interested in taking on this task.

 Update from the FOLIO FacilitatorsJoseph Olivarez

n/a

 Update from Product CouncilDracine HodgesFrom todays PC meeting, Dracine told about EBSCO's presentation of the revised FOLIO V1 Dev & Milestone plan 2. Harry Kaplanian will do an update on the Roadmap on the upcoming OLE Forum on 6/14. Dracine also mentioned that there will be a FOLIO 101 at ALA, and she encouraged SIG members to attend.
 Metadata model - review & discussionLW & group

https://discuss.folio.org/t/metadata-model-deck-from-discussion-with-mm-and-rm-sig/827 - follow up on last week's joint RM/MM meeting 5/26, where Cate presented the revised metadata model for the FOLIO Metadata Concept (outcome of the Dublin meet). Lynn briefly went over some of the highlights in the new model, and mentioned a couple of points the MM need to talk more about at this meeting, and probably circle back to at following meetings.

Lynn pointed out:

  • the Codex record will be format-agnostic containing 20-30 fields - this is where the MM SIG can provide input and give some directions on which fields to include, and also do some pre-work on mapping MARC fields to Codex fields, and also other meta data formats
  • the Codex records which are derived from Source Records or External KB records will not be editable in the FOLIO Codex. It will be possible to create native records as Folio Codex records, but editing of the source records will happen in e.g. OCLC, or maybe in a FOLIO copy of of the source record.
  • the biggest advantages of the revised model is the elimination of the intermediary FOLIO detailed record. Al sorts of complications are avoided by doing so.
  • the biggest disadvantage would be: Only one source record can be linked to each Codex record - a one-to-one relationship. Chew Chiat Naun mentioned that we still need to solve how info from different sources can be tied in to the Codex record, e.g. package information, some local information from separate sources. Lynn agreed, and she could also see instances, where the same e-book title appearing in several e-book packages coming from a KB. Dracine said this was one of her concerns too, the collapsing of data around a single work, a single instance.
  • right now we are talking about instance level records, but in the metadata model there is a work level above the instance level, and how that is going to influence the display, has not been explored, or discussed yet
  • it can be problematic if the purchase order is based on a merge of similar or identical records from different sources based on the vendors metadata.
  • future updates of merged instance records needs to be discussed. This underscore the need for determination of what metadata do we need in the Codex record
  • administrative metadata in the Codex record - the record history, e.g. what processes brought the record into the system, order record information, who updated the record
  • Ann-Marie Breaux could see a duplicate situation, if you order your e-books in one way, and manage the metadata in a KB. All the ERM data, is metadata, e.g. information about payment, and when a title is bought. It feels like you have two versions of everything.

What is the FOLIO Codex metadata? A standard set, a smaller set of metadata pieces that would be primarily for non-cataloguing search and workflow work

  • Peter Murray explained that the purpose of the search component is searching in support of workflows; discovery is out of scope
  • In terms of searching for discovery, the intention is that FOLIO will pass source records and other metadata from other FOLIO apps to the discovery layer for indexing

Anne L. Highsmith noticed, we are talking about item- and holdings records, and since the thinking now is, that the source record will be kept as authoritative in the revised model, then what about MARC holdings records? Will they be stored, and editable? The question is highly relevant and will be add to the use case document. Mike Showalter agreed in the need to add use cases for holdings data, items data, order data. He suggested to distinct between the type using the "Record type" column. Ann-Marie also suggested a new column "Added by" in the spread sheet.

In the deck shown by Cate last week slide 16 and 17 gives an start example of the metadata envisioned in different material types of records:

Lynn explained that the work with the use cases will show which elements will be relevant. Hopefully do we will not end up with a gigantic list, but a more manageable list of data elements.

 

 Use case document "homework" 

https://discuss.folio.org/t/folio-codex-use-cases/828/2

Lynn encouraged all to fill in metadata use cases, e.g workflow task as administrative metadata on history of activity, things you need to track etc. in the spread sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M5eftff8ZHYET5-JFFARUZ-i9n7O6tAQ7mg0G0CkZQ4/edit?usp=sharing

Lynn have added e.g. row #13: Add Electronic Theses & Dissertations to Codex - and ended up with several questions. Jacquie Sampler asked: do we need to have a record of every resource (we 'own', 'rent', 'produce') in the Codex, even if they are not part of the workflow, but only part of the Discovery layer? Mike Showalter suggested to focus on the use case related to acquisition, and where the money are spend.

After the RM meeting on 6/2 it would be a good time to start fill in data in the Codex data elements needed - in the document started by Mike S.: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16ywTWiQvTjHF3RbGpoZ00rAZ0gqf1F2upUTLWTPW0aY/edit#gid=0

 

 Location data - discuss.folioAnn-Marie Breaux

https://discuss.folio.org/t/location-data-ra-rm-mm-sigs/803

Ann-Marie Breaux used to work for YBP, which now is the GoKB Solution with EBSCO. Her back ground is as acquisition and cataloguing librarian. Ann-Marie work 100% FOLIO these days. The topic re. location data originated discussions in the Resource Access SIG (RA). Ann-Marie raised: 1) Lots of levels sounds complicated; 2) and with print being a diminishing percentage of the usage in our libraries, would there now be the incentive to simplify the location hierarchical structure, and flatten the structure, and do a flat list of locations, where you could pick and choose the different locations depending on the task. Lynn acknowledged that some of this hierarchical structure, the very granular nature, maybe have some historical reasons. Jacquie reminded, that most of the big academic libraries today have very large physical collections, and managing these collections will they continue to do the next decades. At Duke such a flat list, is going to be a very long list. The hierarchical structure is a way to manage, sort, and filter these locations. Sara Schmidt explained, that there are a lot of nuances to this, e.g. a special collection is not just in library X, but defined on item level.

Lynn reminded, that people can contribute and comment further on the Discuss forum.

 

 Notes from FOLIO Day at Simmons in BostonAnn-Marie Breaux

This week a FOLIO Day was held at Simmons in Boston. The meeting was organized by FLO (Fenway Libraries Online), with participants from small, and mid sized academic libraries. At the break out was lead by Ann-Marie, and her colleague Marc Keeper:

 Following key topics expressed by the participants:

    1. there was some confusion on the Codex data model, and how to work with the source records
    2. the kind of metadata the libraries are managing. If the libraries have metadata in a resource format different from MARC, then lots of libraries represent the records in MARC, to be able to represent these records in their OPAC, and discovery interface.
    3. Authority control – especially important for music; not handled well by discovery systems. Music and visual materials people not represented will in the SIGs yet, e.g. the members from the arts library communities. Should authority control be its own SIG? Maybe a subgroup within the MM SIG?
    4. Have a way to include types of data, that may be important to a particular type of resource, e.g. oral histories.
    5. It is very important that FOLIO doesn't turns to be so simple, that it can not handle the complexity of a Duke library, but we do not want it to be so complex, that a smaller libraries need to do it more complicated than necessary, e.g. a electronic only library, which recently was forced to set up circulation rules!

See the full text of notes: https://discuss.folio.org/t/mm-rm-notes-from-simmons-folio-day-from-ann-marie-breaux/839

Time ran out, and Lynn reminded again that people can contribute on Discuss.

Action items