2022-08-24 Data Import Subgroup meeting

Owned by Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated)
Last updated: Aug 25, 2022

Recordings are posted Here (2022+) and Here (pre-2022)                   Slack channel for Q&A, discussion between meetings

Requirements details Here                                                                    Additional discussion topics in Subgroup parking lot


Attendees: Ann-Marie Breaux (Deactivated) Khalilah Gambrell leeda.adkins@duke.edu Monica Arnold Raegan Wiechert Mary C Adam Cottle Christie Thomas Hansie Grignon Heather MacFarlane (Deactivated) Jackie Magagnosc Jacquie Samples Jeanette Kalchik Jenn Colt Jennifer Eustis Jessica Janecki Joshua Barton Julia Corrice Lloyd Chittenden Lucas Mak Natalie Sommerville Natascha Owens Taylor Smith

Morning Glory

Agenda topics:

  • Manually linked MARC Authorities and MARC Bibs, and the impact on Data import (Khalilah - 55 mins)
    • If you have time before the meeting, please add your comments and questions to the following wiki pages: 
    • Discussion
      • Quick overview of the mockups for manual linking (see slide deck attached below)
      • Then discussion of the the various cases documented in the above requirement docs
      • Questions and comments
        • Derive - often derive from print to create an e-resource record - would be good to have the links for any headings in the original record carry over to the derived record (Christie, Jacquie)
          • Per Josh, Mich State uses on a limited basis - A would probably be best
        • Concern about system load when importing updated authority records that trigger lots of impact to headings in linked bib records; comment that some large authority loads take days to complete in their current system (Jennifer)
        • Concern about a linked bib heading/authority record heading just matching on $0 or full text string; would absolutely want to have control over any automated linking in the system, plus rich reporting on what did or didn't happen (Christie)
        • Permissions:
          • Manual linking will be separate from regular quickMARC edit/derive permission
          • Automated linking will also have a separate permission
        • Overlaying a MARC Bib via Inventory Single Record Import
          • Maybe bringing in a new copy of the record from OCLC - if the values match, keep the links; if the values don't match (or don't existing in the new version of the record), then no links
            • Matching: aim for $0 match if present in incoming record; if no $0, then exact text string match as secondary option
            • Need to discuss further when we get to auto-linking
          • Maybe until auto-linking, only preserve the links for existing fields if the existing field and the incoming field have the same $0; do not try to do any text-string matching; then make it more sophisticated (perhaps) when we get to auto-linking
        • Data import updates a MARC Bib record, and a linked heading in that record conflicts with the authorized version of the heading in the authority record (scenario 7 in the bib record interactions doc linked above)
          • see updated doc - several scenarios
        • Might it be helpful to add other examples to tease out different handling preferences? e.g. in Scenario 7, we had
          • 100 Angelou with $0 being updated to Angeloo with $0 (typo, different from authorized form, report - still TBD - update the Bib 100 or not?)
          • 100 Angelou being updated to Twain, incoming field had different $0 (unlink, update, don't report)
          • 100 Angelou with $0 being updated to Angelou without $0 (unlink, update, don't report)
          • 100 Angelou with $0 being updated to 700 Angelou with $0 (keep linked, update, don't report)
    • Mockups for manual linking (see slide 11 especially for how the links display in MARC Bibs):

Upcoming meetings:

  • 31 August 2022 


Comments 

From Natalie Sommerville to Everyone 01:04 PM
Brb-- handling some office furniture moving logistics.
I'm back!

From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:05 PM
I will be there and would attend.

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:05 PM
I would attend virtually, depending on the day/time.

From Leeda Adkins to Everyone 01:05 PM
I'll be virtual as well

From Natalie Sommerville to Everyone 01:05 PM
+1 Jacquie

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:05 PM
I'll be there

From Raegan Wiechert to Everyone 01:05 PM
Possibly virtually

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:09 PM
I am out of the office (after WOLFcon sessions) so won't be at next week's meeting if it is at 1 PM EST

From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 01:11 PM
No worries, Jacquie - we'll record and I'll add notes

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:11 PM
Thanks!

From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 01:12 PM
For last week's notes - I still need to transcribe from the recording. Will do that by the end of this week
Super important - keep MANUAL linking in your head, done by a user, not the system triggering any automated linking

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:13 PM
Those interface changes are great, Khaliliah.

From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 01:23 PM
I agree, Jacquie - and not on the mockup, but also in QM edit/derive screen as of Morning Glory - an indicator of which fields are protected

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:25 PM
Agreed!  I want to just double, super, extra check that as an institution, I will be able to set configurations to never enable Bib to Authority connections.  AND then to possibly change that configuration once we get to Entity Management.  :)

This is why I didn't engage in answering Khalilah's questions.

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:25 PM

I'm glad you brought up system load Jennifer

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:26 PM
+1 Jennifer. such important questions and concerns!

From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:26 PM
Yes, +1 to Jennifer.

From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 01:26 PM
Jacquie - I'll doublecheck, but I'm pretty sure that the linking is a separate permission from other QM edits

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:29 PM
Thanks Ann-Marie.

+1 Christie robust reporting is needed at the same moment this type of linking is available.

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:30 PM
linking on $0 should at least be much safer than string matching

From Joshua Barton to Everyone 01:30 PM
Re: deriving in QM, we will do it in limited cases at Michigan State. I think outcome option A seems best.

From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:30 PM
Great point Christie. Some linking issues come up between orders and inventory records when you need to move holdings and items for instance. There has also been issues with ghost links - people have seen this with package orders in the title list

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:32 PM
+1 again Christie, we use the print version of the record as the basis of records for scanned materials.
@Jessica I agree that matching on $0 should be safer, but I am concerned about the cascading nature of the linking as I heard it described.

From jeanette kalchik to Everyone 01:34 PM
We do it commonly with e-resources

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:34 PM
We overlay e-resource records all the time.

From Taylor Smith to Everyone 01:34 PM
overlaying happens a lot here with e-resources as well

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:34 PM
if linking happened automatically, then like A-M says things that have links would be getting overlaid all the time

From Christie Thomas (she/her) to Everyone 01:34 PM
Yeah, we are always overlaying.

From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:34 PM
we overlay all sorts of records especially now after we went live

From Taylor Smith to Everyone 01:34 PM
not as much with phys but still not uncommon

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:35 PM
and even if linking only happened manually as part of an artisanal cataloging process, you might still over lay that upon occasion.

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:35 PM
Serialists do overlay records somewhat regularly, as details of a title change.

From Natalie Sommerville to Everyone 01:36 PM
+1 to Jacquie and +1 Jessica .  Lots of overlays for e resources, but we routinely overlay print records for many types of resources as well

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:36 PM
good example A-M

From Joshua Barton to Everyone 01:39 PM
We also overlay all the time, including physical. And our monthly authorities processing is one of the big overlaying workflows, at least for now. But I don't know how much the introduction of this authority linking might change that. Lisa Robinson can't be here today, but she's the one I'd want to hear from for Michigan State.

From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:39 PM
Would definitely want to see how all this comparing affects performance

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:39 PM
Agreed Jenn

If it's too slow then it doesn't matter

From Leeda Adkins to Everyone 01:39 PM
+1 Jenn

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:40 PM
+1 Jenn

From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:40 PM
It might be nice to let the user decide like in OCLC Connexion to control and uncontrol headings.

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:41 PM
K, don't make it too complicated since things are going to change with the implementation of autolinking

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:41 PM
+1 Josh.  Currently, we do overlay all the time through the authority control vendor service (ACVS) process.  We'd hit all types of potentially already linked heading.  If we were going to turn this feature on at all.

From Jenn Colt to Everyone 01:44 PM
$0 (+field) seems reasonable

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:46 PM
a vendor should be able to give you a $0

From Jennifer Eustis (she/her) to Everyone 01:46 PM
That's what I think too Jessica

From Jacquie Samples -- Duke to Everyone 01:47 PM
yes, I agree with Jessica. Our ACVS vendor provides the $0 and updates them when needed.

From Jessica Janecki to Everyone 01:47 PM
Yes, if we match, match on the $0, not the plain text string

From Ann-Marie Breaux to Everyone 01:47 PM
That's good to know, Jessica - that if libraries have not routinely received or retained $0s, they may be able to get updated versions of the records with $0s

00:58:48 Jacquie Samples -- Duke: Good points, Christie! I take back what I just said about wanting a report on this kind of change. :)

00:58:51 Jessica Janecki: Agreed Christie.

00:59:11 Jenn Colt: These scenarios don't sound like what #7 is asking

00:59:12 Jacquie Samples -- Duke: I am presuming that the SRS data is really gone/updated to the new fields.

00:59:57 Jenn Colt: the $0

01:01:42 Jenn Colt: i have to go sorry

01:01:44 Jacquie Samples -- Duke: That presumes, though, that the new Authority record IS ALREADY in FOLIO. We don't load authorities for entities not already present in the catalog.

01:01:53 Jacquie Samples -- Duke: I have to run, sorry!!

01:01:57 Jessica Janecki: yes

01:01:57 Mary Campany: I've got to go, but I'll see you all later!

01:02:00 Ann-Marie Breaux: A fundamental question or maybe element of the design - can we agree that if a field in a MARC Bib is linked to a MARC Authority record, then the data for the bib field MUST match the data for the Authorized heading?

01:02:12 Jessica Janecki: no need for a report for routine stuff

01:02:34 Jacquie Samples -- Duke: +1 Jessica.

01:02:41 Jessica Janecki: sorry I have to go too

01:03:09 Natalie Sommerville: I also have to go. Bye everyone.

01:04:12 Joshua Barton: Gotta run. Thanks for the discussion.

01:05:03 Ann-Marie Breaux: Definitely feels like we'll need to have a further meeting on this. I'll talk with Khalilah about next steps

01:05:33 jeanette kalchik: Whenever we overlay E-Resources our $0 from our authority vendor get wiped out.

01:05:59 Ann-Marie Breaux: That's a really good point, Jeanette - what happens if the incoming record does not have $0

01:06:40 Ann-Marie Breaux: Based on what Khalilah just said, the link goes away, but we can live with that in the case of manual links

01:07:00 Christie Thomas (she/her): I think that is what should happen if the $0 goes away just to be safe.