2026-08-06 Resource Access Meeting Notes

NOTE: RESOURCE ACCESS SIG USES EITHER ZOOM’S AI NOTES FUNCTIONALITY OR MICROSOFT COPILOT TO PROCESS THE TRANSCRIPT. If you would prefer that we do not use AI any session you attend, we are happy to! Please alert the convener at the start of the meeting.

Find all recordings here: https://recordings.openlibraryfoundation.org/folio/resource-access-sig/  (pw: folio-lsp)

https://zoom.us/j/337279319  (pw: folio-lsp)

Susan Kimball

Katie Rahman

Thomas Trutt

Laura E Daniels

Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson

Anja Kakau

Jacob Dudley

David Bottorff

Steve Strohl

Heather Dolson

Nina Morgenstern

Tobi Hines

Amelia Sutton

Joseph A Molloy

Martina Tumulla

Marie Widigson

Robert Heaton

Discussion Items:

AI-Generated minutes (pardon any errors)

Discussion Points:

• Opening, Agenda Review, and Administrative Updates (00:13:26 – 00:16:04)

  • The group reviewed upcoming schedule milestones. The next meeting is set for August 13, followed by an August 20 session where Tim Auger will present. Regular meetings will be paused during the week of WolfCon.

  • Thomas Trutt requested agenda time to review a ticket concerning automated blocks. Susan Kimball noted that the item was added to the schedule for full discussion during the following week's meeting.

• Background and Current Limitations of FOLIO Item Statuses (00:16:04 – 00:23:30)

  • Laura Daniels (Cross App SIG co-convenor, Metadata Management) presented the historical background and current state of FOLIO item statuses.

  • Original 3-Part Architecture Vision: The initial concept for FOLIO item architecture called for a three-part state comprising availability, process, and internal logistical statuses working interactively. However, the system was ultimately deployed with a single, hard-coded Item Status field.

  • Advantages of the Current Hard-Coded Model: The current single-status model offers system stability, prevents unintended software side effects, simplifies documentation across member institutions, requires no setup decisions during implementation, and reduces code complexity for developers.

  • Operational Bottlenecks and Workflow Pain Points: The hard-coded architecture creates significant manual work across multiple library departments:

    • Inventory staff cannot manually update item statuses directly from "Withdrawn", "In Process", "In Transit", or "Missing" back to "Available".

    • Statuses such as "Aged to Lost" cannot be altered directly within Inventory.

    • Discrepancies exist between "In Process" and "In Process (non-requestable)" behaviors.

    • In Acquisitions, staff cannot transition items directly from "On Order" to "In Process (non-requestable)" during receiving.

    • Single-status constraints lead to workflow failures; for example, an item designated as "Restricted" automatically resets to "Available" upon check-in, clearing intended temporary restrictions.

• Feedback, Use Cases, and Ideal System Design (00:23:30 – 00:56:52)

  • Patron-Tied Logistics vs. Internal Processing:

    • David Bottorff emphasized that "Aged to Lost" requires strict hard-coded protections because it is tied to an active patron loan and check-in history. Uncontrolled manual status edits by cataloging staff could disrupt billing and patron financial records.

    • Jacob Dudley described an instance where an item was mistakenly set to "Declared Lost" instead of "Aged to Lost", forcing staff to check the item in and disrupt loan history to correct the error. Susan Kimball noted in chat that "Declared Lost" and "Aged to Lost" represent separate billing workflows.

    • Anja Kakau agreed that logistic operations connected to patron records (lost, returned, claimed returned) must remain protected from manual tampering. She advocated for a clear architectural separation between patron-facing circulation logistics and internal library procedures like shelf reading, preservation, and digitization tracking.

  • Integration with Loan Policies and Circulation Logic:

    • Anja Kakau proposed that secondary internal descriptors should optionally feed into loan policies to govern requestability and trigger acquisitions reviews or Interlibrary Loan (ILL) workflows.

    • Thomas Trutt and Anja Kakau evaluated the complexity of allowing multiple repeatable statuses on a single record. They noted that multi-status priority ordering (e.g., resolving conflicts between "Restricted" and "Missing") introduces heavy business logic overhead.

  • Custom Statuses and Workflow Automation (Bed Bug Mitigation):

    • Joseph Molloy detailed Spokane's bed bug mitigation protocol. Laura Daniels noted in chat her experience with bedbug procedures at a previous institution.

    • Under current software behavior, handling a suspected bed bug item requires 17 to 40 manual steps, including hold placement, automated return overrides, check-in notes, freezer treatment, and manual suppression of instance records if it is the last copy.

    • Joseph suggested that selecting a custom status (e.g., "Bed Bug") should automatically trigger system rules, such as auto-suppressing the record or blocking requests, eliminating up to 7 manual clicks per record.

    • Joseph highlighted two ticket concepts: JIRA:Lost-in-Transit for tracking items lost in transit, and JIRA:Recently-Returned to activate FOLIO's existing shelving lag time setting.

  • Public Discovery vs. Staff Display:

    • Thomas Trutt and Joseph Molloy discussed internal versus external display labels. For sensitive workflows like bed bug treatments, institutions require an internal staff label ("BB") and an external public OPAC label ("Under Staff Review") to avoid public alarm while overriding default "Available" displays.

  • Pragmatic Incremental Improvements:

    • Susan Kimball and David Bottorff recalled earlier developments regarding Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) and item process statuses.

    • David Bottorff cautioned against delaying near-term fixes while waiting for a complete workflow engine. He recommended addressing immediate pain points, such as permitting Inventory staff to update "In Process" items directly to "Available", which would reduce unnecessary circulation permissions for technical services staff.

• Application Architecture, Display Names, and Consortial Settings (00:56:52 – 01:08:18)

  • Dedicated Item Status Tools and App Splitting:

    • Katie Rahman proposed building a dedicated "Item Status App" enabling staff to scan items and update statuses directly with fine-grained permissions, bypassing Inventory navigation.

    • Laura Daniels noted past discussions in Metadata Management regarding splitting FOLIO Inventory into three separate, scoped applications for Instances, Holdings, and Items.

    • Anja Kakau supported scoping application access so desk student assistants can manage item statuses without accessing or inadvertently altering cataloging metadata and holdings records.

    • Robert Heaton noted in chat that in-house use tracking functionality relates closely to these item status requirements.

  • Customizable Status Display Names:

    • Jacob Dudley suggested a near-term feature: retaining underlying hard-coded FOLIO system codes while providing a configuration table to customize staff-facing display names and external discovery labels.

    • Thomas Trutt agreed that mapping custom display labels to fixed underlying codes represents a light development effort.

  • Consortium (ECS) and Union Catalog Impact:

    • Scott Peterson emphasized that consortia, union catalogs (such as OpenRS), and external discovery layers require uniform, hard-coded underlying status codes to function properly across tenants.

    • Jacob Dudley and Thomas Trutt discussed multi-tenant Consortium (ECS) configurations. Katie Rahman noted in chat that securing agreement across multiple institutions is a major operational challenge. Thomas Trutt proposed a dual-layer approach where the central ECS controller sets baseline system-wide status rules while individual tenants retain options for local descriptors.

✅ Decisions Made:

• Maintain Protections for Patron-Connected Statuses:

  • Decided by: Group consensus led by David Bottorff, Anja Kakau, Susan Kimball, and Jacob Dudley.

  • Rationale: Statuses linked to active patron records, fees, and billing (e.g., Aged to Lost, Declared Lost, Claimed Returned) must remain protected against arbitrary manual overrides in Inventory to prevent loss of loan history and financial tracking errors.

• Synthesize Cross-SIG Feedback for WolfCon Presentation:

  • Decided by: Thomas Trutt and Laura Daniels.

  • Rationale: Combining input gathered across multiple SIGs (Cross App, Metadata Management, Resource Access) will form a unified community proposal to present at WolfCon in Prague.

• Defer Automated Block Ticket Discussion:

  • Decided by: Susan Kimball and Thomas Trutt.

  • Rationale: The agenda item was deferred to the next session due to meeting time constraints.

📄 Action Items and Follow-up:

• Synthesize Feedback and Prepare WolfCon Deliverable:

  • Responsible: Thomas Trutt and Laura Daniels.

  • Task: Collate feedback gathered from various SIG discussions on item states and assemble a consolidated presentation.

  • Deadline/Checkpoint: WolfCon in Prague.

• Lead Discussion on Automated Block Issue:

  • Responsible: Thomas Trutt.

  • Task: Present background details on the automated block issue (JIRA:Automated-Block-Bug) to reach consensus on expected behavior.

  • Deadline/Checkpoint: Next meeting on August 13.

• Present on "Recently Returned" Status:

  • Responsible: Tim Auger.

  • Task: Lead a topic presentation on the "Recently Returned" status functionality.

  • Deadline/Checkpoint: Meeting on August 20.

• Upcoming Meeting Schedule:

  • August 13: Review of JIRA:Automated-Block-Bug.

  • August 20: Tim Auger presentation on JIRA:Recently-Returned.

  • WolfCon Week: No meeting held.