2021-03-01 Resource Access Meeting Notes

Date

Mar 1, 2021

Attendees

@Marie Widigson

@Erin Weller

@(OLD ACCOUNT) Erin Nettifee

@David Bottorff

@Martina Tumulla

@Martina Karlsson

@Monica Arnold

@Christine Tobias

@Mark Canney

@Elizabeth Chenette

@Andy Horbal

@Stephanie Buck

@Kelly Drake

@Cornelia Awenius

@Laurence Mini

@Cheryl Malmborg

@Brooks Travis

@Andrea Loigman

@Molly Driscoll

@lisa perchermeier

@mey

@Darcy Branchini

@Patty Kishman-Smith

@Jana Freytag

Discussion Items

Time	Item	Who	Description	Goals/Info

Time

Item

Who

Description

Goals/Info

2min

Administrivia

@Jana Freytag

Refreshed SIG charge

Notetaker: @Monica Arnold

45Min

Title level requests

@Kelly Drake

Gathering requirements and accessing interest for title level requesting
Timeline: We would like to have requirements gathered by March 15, 2021

Name: "Title level requests" vs. "Instance level " requests

The request is not actually on the title - different editions or formats of a title may be available but will not be included in the request queue that we are envisioning
"Instance' is folio-speak and non-native folio speakers may not understand what we mean

Meeting Outcomes

Functional Area	Product Owner	Planned Release (if known)	Decision Reached	Reasoning	Link to supporting materials	Comments

Functional Area	Product Owner	Planned Release (if known)	Decision Reached	Reasoning	Link to supporting materials
e.g. loans, fees/fines	Name	e.g. Q4 2018, Q1 2019	Clearly stated decision	Because... Because...	e.g. mock-up, JIRA issue

Notes

Should title level requests be renamed to instance level requests?

The consensus was that the nomenclature of ‘title level requests’ is industry standard and should be retained. Documentation can clarify that ‘title level requests’ involve FOLIO instances.

How is the conflict between an item level request and a title level request resolved?

Sierra only allows one or the other, set at the server level.

Items with multiple copies should be handled differently then items with multiple volumes. Patrons must be able to request a specific volume of a multi-volume or serially produced monographs (e.g. almanacs). Of course there can be multiple copies of a single volume in a multi-volume work, so these must be handled as well. There is concern about where the volume information will be sourced. Erin noted that the volume information in the holdings record is a text field

Staff needs (for example bindery’s need to request a particular item) is out of scope for this and should be handled at a different level.

Kelly suggested that discovery layer pops up a dialog asking the patron whether they want the first available copy/volume or a particular copy/volume. It was suggested that the dialog should warn the patron that selecting a particular copy/volume may delay delivery.

Marie asked if circ rules could be used to determine when an title level request or an item level request is available.

Consensus seemed to be that item level requests do not trump title level requests. Requests would be fulfilled in chronological order of when the request was placed. The system would need to reevaluate the request queue when new items are checked in.

Brooks will look at FOLIO APIs and how they interact with EDS.

Chalmers will demonstrate existing functionality for Thursday’s meeting.