2020-02-24 Resource Access Meeting Notes
Date
Feb 24, 2020
Attendees
@Andrea Loigman
@Brooks Travis
@Schwill, Carsten
@(OLD ACCOUNT) Erin Nettifee
@Emma Boettcher
@William Weare
@Joanne Leary
@Cate Boerema (Deactivated)
@Brian Arrigo
@Monica Arnold
@David Bottorff
@Rameka Barnes
@Jana Freytag
@Anya
@Kimie Kester
@Cheryl Malmborg
@mey
@Thomas Paige
@Allison Estell
Discussion Items
Time | Item | Who | Description | Goals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
5min | Housekeeping | @Andrea Loigman |
|
|
30min | Item State | @Emma Boettcher | Custom item statuses (Availability) | Determine what needs to be configurable about custom item statuses |
25min | Item state | @Emma Boettcher | Custom item statuses (Requests) | Determine how custom item statuses should interact with configurable requests whitelist |
Meeting Outcomes
Functional Area | Product Owner | Planned Release (if known) | Decision Reached | Reasoning | Link to supporting materials | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E.g., loans, fines/fees | Name |
| Clearly stated decision |
| e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue |
|
Notes (submitted by David Bottorff)
Custom Item Statuses - exploratory meeting
Ability to create a form that makes the usual decisions we make in the SIG to configure a new status
How it receives the status
system response to check an item in
system response to check out an item
system response to request an item
This discussion is not looking to make a suggestion regarding prioritization, etc.
How it receives the status might only be manually selectable or batch editable until workflow engine
Chicago needs item statuses regardless of whether there is a workflow engine or not
Duke feels most custom item states are not needed unless in process and needed for states are not there
needed for and in process states are probably a year away
David Bot - feels as though MM needs to be consulted on this
New book status that automatically gets removed when an item is checked out/checked in (Sierra)
Erin - worried that we lose the specificity of the model if we allow custom item states
Emma - there is no way FOLIO ships with all of the item states that every library is needed
Cheryl - what may be in scope is to create item statuses that can be mapped to system responses until three state model is available
Andrea - seems bare minimum is check out, request, check in
Emma - can you mark this missing, withdrawn, etc.
David Chicago - since we're stuck with hard-coding for existing item statuses, this seem reasonable
Simple form that sets up item status settings, which could then be built out to work for built in item states
Emma - absent of a workflow engine, relying on existing logic at check-in, etc. is all FOLIO can do
probably another option needed to allow or not allow check in or check out
cases where item status should not change as a result of check-in
Would the request whitelist still exist elsewhere or should they be combined into the item state screen
Erin It seems reasonable to add whitelist features to regular item states in addition to custom item states
Cornell concerned about a need for "requested" that is separate from checked out
Should we create a master list of item statuses, that includes those that we will not treat as item statuses
deadline to populate item status list before next Monday's meeting