During 2023-07-13 Metadata Management Meeting notes we talked about new MARC fields/subfields and if and how to include them into the Inventory entities. This concerns mapping questions and the overall instance/holdings schema. We agreed to move the following question into the parking lot for further analysis:

How do we handle MARC updates in the future? Changes to RDA? Bibframe? Other schema and standards?

STCOM-745 Closed → Done

2023-01-18: Still need for discussion?

2023-01-19 during meeting:

• Should there be more validation when editing records in quickMARC or importing data through Data Import?
• Needs better documentation in order to understand what is being validated.
• Discuss in one of the next meetings.
• Loop in (at least) Khalilah and Ann-Marie.

duplicative metadata for eBooks: some in the remote KB, which allows for accessing the eBooks in the library’s discovery layer, and some in locally-stored MARC records. Moving forward, do we see that scenario working differently in FOLIO (only use KB metadata perhaps?) and if so, 1) what does that mean in terms of the richness of the metadata and 2) what about current workflows that involve transporting non-bibliographic metadata in those local MARC records, e.g. acquisitions data? (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017): discuss topic: https://discuss.folio.org/t/ebook-metadata-records-in-folio/1286. 

How are ebooks / ebook packages going to be represented in the inventory? libraries have a variety of approaches to managing ebooks - some have individual records for ebooks; some have a 1 record approach (ebook links on print records) AND we can have the same ebook title represented in multiple packages; it sounds as if Packages will be represented in the Codex, but not the inventory. Nov. 15, 2018 update: Packages may now be represented by Container records in Inventory (Lynn W., 9/28/17) discuss topic: https://discuss.folio.org/t/ebook-packages-relationship-to-individual-title-records/1287. 

Revisit Container Records (depending on roadmap) – UXPROD-491

1. UXPROD-139 Draft
2. UXPROD-151 Draft

Hi Khalilah Gambrell - this story is from the very old Functional matrix - when we didn't really knew about eHoldings app, ERM (familly of apps), MARCcat.

We need to revisit this topic.

Orders supports now linking of "packages" to POL's.

2023-01-19 during meeting:

• Start conversation around usage of Inventory with regards to e-resources and reserves, e.g. do libraries create instances for e-resources managed in an external KB as well?
• Revisit container record
• how to keep the apps less dependent on each other, but able to link and know about each other - the eContent / orders / Inventory / Reserves is a great example
• Touchbase with Owen when we revisit this topic

metadata for non-textual formats, to ensure FOLIO is taking their needs into account enough. (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017). Inventory Beta Metadata Elements 

Need music cataloging review of Inventory, MarCat, etc. (Laura W, Oct. 15, 2018)

Music / Maps / Media cataloging review of data elements in Inventory – show & tell?

2023-01-18: Status of this work? How is the experience of libraries using Inventory with special collections?

2023-01-19 during meeting:

• There is a need to discuss and interest in this topic
• Think about templates for MARC import

Combined format bib records: while you are considering this resources/formats, don't forget folks who have multiple formats on one bib, so there could be 007s etc. on print records where the e-version is also noted on the print version. (Lisa, TAMU, Jan 18 2018)

2023-01-18: Is this supported by the MARC2Instance mapping?

2023-01-19 during meeting:

• Jacquie: "mulvered" records (multiple versions/manifestations) happened in all carrier types back in the day. They can be found in monographs as well as serials. Mostly legacy bib records are concerned.
• Revisit, but with medium/low priority.
• Issue with higher priority is the fact that the 336 in the MARC is repeatable but the instance resource type is not.

protecting local edits (inventory records): this is definitely not something I think we should be asking for in v1, but I'd love to be able to protect fields not in a systematic way, but specific fields in specific records – for example, we have added a local genre/form term to some records that help students find materials for a class assignment; most of the records are for print materials but a few are for e-books that we have acquired as part of a package; our current batch-loading processes don't preclude the possibility of this field being stripped out if an updated version of the record is supplied to us; Adding to this on 18 Octo 2017: I'd also like to be able to do something like protect an item record from deletion based on a location code (Laura W, 27 Sept 2017)

2023-01-18: This is still a highly relevant topic and a very demanded function.

2023-01-26 from meeting:

Still needs to be discussed

UXPROD-1646 Draft

Draft proposal document

2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic.

2023-01-26 from meeting:

still needs to be discussed; model change needed to support this; need to confirm that proposal is still accurate and then bump to Technical Council and maybe Entity Management; from chat: what does this question look like to our Chinese colleagues?

Links and linking fields between Inventory records, e.g. monographic series instance relationships, 773 fields, bound-withs, etc.

UXPROD-1892

2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic.

2023-01-26 from meeting: need to collect all linking/relationships possible and then see if we have implemented them in Folio; how does this relate to requesting items?

Split bound-withs and Instance/Instance into two separate topics

Discuss display with RA SIG

MSEARCH-447 Open

2023-01-18: With the change to ElasticSearch the technology has changed. Is this still a topic we'd like to discuss?

2023-01-26 from meeting: still needs to be discussed (after Orchid release check if discussion is still needed; also check for non-English)

1. UIIN-235 Closed → Done
2. UIIN-253 Closed → Done

2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution?

2023-01-26 from meeting:

still needs to be discussed as some institutions are still using mostly 5XX; maybe something for Entity Management?

Inventory search

Inventory UI

UXPROD-491 Analysis complete

2023-01-18: Reviewed in 2022. Link to UX mocks up for hierarchical display of the result list.

We need to revisit this topic and discuss requirements for configurations; need to talk to Roadmap group about making this a top priority; also talk to Implementers Group, what does LC think of this?

Order/sequencing of holdings on an instance, and order/sequence of items within a holdings record: should there be a way to control the order (alphabetical, sequential numeric, always show Main first) (Lisa, TAMU, July 19 2018)

Default order of holdings records, per Slack: A group from multiple German libraries is wondering if we could find consensus with a new default sort order: Sorting proposal: Ascending [A-Z0-9] by name of location and, if necessary, further ascending by call number, as those values are visible in the collapsed Holdings record view from the Instance record. (Felix, GBV, 2022-11-20)

1. UXPROD-1635 Draft
2. UXPROD-1625 Draft

Acquisitions data display in Holdings/Items (UXPROD-1607) – revisit

Receiving data in Holdings? In Receiving app?

UXPROD-1607 Analysis complete

2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic.

2023-02-02: Some acq data is now populating, but not all. Need to review to see if we need changes.

Inventory UI

Customization

UI review of Inventory for different types of users/different institutions’ data; including treatment of fields that are not mapped (as opposed to data not recorded, i.e. blank fields) Show & Tell?

2023-01-18: We need to revisit this topic.

2023-02-02: still needs to be discussed

UXPROD-1647 (umbrella issue) Open

2023-01-18: Status: Several dependencies still unsolved.

2023-02-02: App Interaction and Technical Council have been doing work; need to have an update/presentation on? Yes- App Interaction

Right now there are a few UXPROD issues related to in app reports for inventory. It's not clear though that the data for these comes from inventory alone, at least some seem to include MARC data that would be in SRS. More clarity on the reports that will be generated from inventory, SRS, and MARCCat in-app reports vs data warehouse reports would be helpful. (jenn colt, Cornell, 4/25/19)

2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution?

2023-02-02: Yes, not everyone has access to out-of-app reporting; Include Reporting SIG

Update and possible demo of Format and print of spine labels. https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-1316 In particular, what is the expected user interface and is there a plan to have a dedicated Settings > Inventory > Label printing permission or is it due to be part of existing permissions? It appears to still be planned to be completed for Juniper. Also, and update to ABLE Bindery (https://folio-org.atlassian.net/browse/UXPROD-2800). 

UXPROD-1316 In refinement

2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic or do we have a proper solution?

2023-02-02: Yes, all printing, not just labels; App Interaction has discussed this (need to contact Martina); Folio Implementers will discuss label printing on 2/14

2023-03-10-ability to print MARC records (Instance record, Action→View source) coming in Orchid

UXPROD-782 Open

UXPROD-4125

Open

2023-01-18: Is this still an open topic? I know that there is something going on in Orders with a history.

2023-02-02: versioning of the records is available; there is a change tracker for Orders coming in Orchid (ask Dennis for demo); need to look into privacy requirements; questions about amount of data being stored

2023-04-20: Please add MM use cases here: Version History Use Cases (Inventory app). Once we have a reasonable list of use cases, we'll discuss this topic once again in the SIG.

2024-02-21- This has been scheduled for the Sunflower release.