| | |
---|
03:22 | Housekeeping | |
06:45 | BELA Updates | Libraries will be presenting on their experiences using Bulk Edit and the Lists app at WOLFcon. They will be presenting from different FOLIO releases. BELA discussed whether or not protected MARC fields should be honored in bulk edit. The BELA group decided that protected fields will be honored unless there is an explicit indication to overwrite them. Amanda asks whether or not the cross app SIG would be interested in participating in a User Acceptance Testing (UAT) session for BELA. Martina asks what form this would take. Amanda says that we could use an App Interaction meeting to go over this with Amanda and Magda. We would go through steps in the app with the goal of eliciting feedback and questions. Hearing someone's thought process out loud can be valuable when doing this in a group setting. Charlotte and Laura agree that this is valuable. Martina says we will schedule a call at a time that Magda can join. Sara asks if Reserves will participate in the testing? At many institutions, Reserves relies heavily on Bulk Edit. Reserves falls under Resource Access. Martina will ask Jana if she is interested, and if so, Jana will get in touch with Amanda.
|
12:24 | Inventory and Agreements Interactions: The Proposal | Sara introduces the issue. We had previously met about having URL links between agreements/agreement lines and inventory holdings records. On the Agreements side, Owen had planned to investigate the possibility of having a URL field in the agreement line to facilitate this (and other) links. On the inventory side, Charlotte worked with Sara on mock ups of how we could have a new accordion in the holdings record for this purpose. Today we will view the slide deck to show the proposed holdings record changes in Inventory. (See UXPROD-4785: Link to Licenses/Agreements/Agreement lines from Inventory, holdingsDraft )
The use case: technical staff users receive vendor data files with records for ebooks, streaming videos, etc for purchased Packages/Collections. These records are not linked in acquisitions processes/orders. Users need to indicate why the records are in inventory. A link to the license or agreement from the holdings record meets this requirement. This link must be at the holdings level rather than the instance level because in cases where multiple institutions share a tenant, multiple institutions share a bib record but have independent agreements. Another reason to link at the holdings level is that one institution may have different agreements for different platforms (and thus different holdings), but the same instance record for the title.
(17:55) The proposal is to create a new accordion called ERM Information. In the accordion, there would be a field called "URL Relationship" that would store links, including the URI, a description/category describing what the link is, and a note field. Edit mode would be similar to the electronic access area. Multiple links on the same record will be supported. Filtering (22:02): there will be an additional filter on the side which would allow the user to filter by the type of URL. Query search on URL would also be available. Ideally, this field would be available in bulk edit (25:12), would be possible to load via Data Import, and would be available to query in the lists app.
|
27:00 | Inventory and Agreements Interactions: Discussion | |
1:00 | Conclusion | Martina asks how we should continue this discussion? We decide to spend our session next week comparing this functionality to Inventory Custom Fields. On Monday May 20th, Laura will give an overview of custom fields in our meeting.
|