2017-04-20 Metadata Management Meeting Notes

• Meeting is being recorded. Recording will be available here.
• Glossary of Terms - Doreen pointed out the FOLIO glossary of terms. Peter Murray stated that this is open for contribution and comment from anyone. Dracine recommended initially edits in case there is a question. In particular Doreen was looking for a definition of "Reference Record."
  
  

• No updates to share. They talked about the upcoming forum about the SIGs. If there are members who want to know what is happening in other SIGs attend this Wednesday, April 25 meeting.

(Joseph was not in attendance to report.)

• Doreen reminded the group to try to use the discuss.folio.org forum, pointing out the visibility of this forum as one of the benefits to broaden our conversations.
• Peter Murray demonstrated a tool in Discuss that will put new conversations in your personal email inbox. In the toolbar, select the circle next to Edit, and New Topic, to turn on notifications if you would like to follow a conversation.

Discussion on

• Resource Management Data Domains
• FOLIO 2018 Release
• Knowledge Base and Metadata - Scope and Domain

• Jacquie mentioned the question she posted on Discuss concerning what "Local" and "Remote" refers to.
  
  • Vince - Local and Remote - To a large extent he was speaking last week of remote resources. There is a coupling between the metadata and the resources they describe.
  • Jacquie - Metadata for remote resource does not necessarily come from the same source.
  • Vince - Local storage of metadata is represented on the right side of the diagram. There is a local cash planned for Folio where various sources of metadata can come together and be held locally. Multiple databases can be used as a source for the metadata.
• Jacquie is concerned with the use of the terms "data" and "metadata" and distinguishing between each.
  • Vince - Data and domain go together. Folio platform needs to manage both various kinds of data domains, some of which contain metadata and some that contain data resources. He asked if naming the diagram, Data Domains in Folio Resource Management more accurately represent the intention of this data model?
• Doreen asked Vince to further define/explain the concept of the reference record. Is the concept similar to the current ILS use of an authority database?
  • Vince explained that we need to receive a data file, merge it locally, then send the changes back. An authority services can be dynamically updated - no synchronization process is involved.
  • Doreen - what does this concept mean for the editing of these record?
  • Vince - Idea of a remote record that is stored in the system. When the authority references change that will change automatically. Layers of data can be used. Owner can pick and choose which elements from which source to be the local record. A "master" record is the foundation, probably held remotely, local changes stored locally will be like a film over the master record to customize. The "master" is the reference record.
  • Doreen commented that this method may help facilitate improvements to the master file. (for example, OCLC).
  • Vince - this would discourage the full copy of a record, replicating data locally unnessarily. There would be feedback mechanism to the person providing the master record
  • Jacquie's institution edits and creates the master record in OCLC, almost entirely. They maintain their bibliographic data in OCLC. Is this suggesting a second master record just for Folio users?
  • Vince clarified that libraries would not have to contribute to another master database. This would require a knowledge base to provide a translation layer for Folio. They vendors and services providers will have to provide a "wrapper" or module that can interface with Folio.
• Concept of the master record. The Folio platform record will be the master record for a library. It may have metadata sourced from many places. Customizations will be added as overlays, that can always be undone.
• Doreen mentioned that in the OLE development process, a lot of time was spent developing a cataloging editor. This model may delay or eliminate the need for Folio to develop a record editor.
• Dracine asked if there would be cross discussions across SIGs. This came up in the Product Council. How do we close the conversation circle concerning this model?
  
  • Vince commented that he was invited to speak at the Resource Management SIG. This model will bridge other SIGs
• Charlotte pointed out that in Folio 2018 release document there is a mention of integration of MarcEdit like tools. The intention is not to develop an editor in Folio.
• Development has not yet started on the rows listed on the Folio 2018 Release spreadsheet.
• Lisa asked for examples of other models that Vince may know of that use this model of reference metadata use, citing his transparency metaphor in particular. If Vince knows of any, he will post it (on the discuss forum?)

Doreen

I'm still trying to build a concrete understanding of the reference record in a bibliographic database. I'm trying to understand it through my own experiences but am not certain that those provide the correct model. I've worked in a system (and probably most systems work this way) where the authority-controlled fields in a bib record (BR) are linked to an authority record (AR) in a way that allows for updating a single AR and having the update reflect in all linked BRs. Both the BRs and ARs are resident in the same database.

Is it correct to envision that the local FOLIO database will work similarly, that there will be a record that will have a link to an external BR and the data from the external record will be a live feed into the local database? But any editing will need to occur at the site of the external BR? Locally, will this record with the link to the external BR live with actual BRs that we cannot have links to (e.g. records from vendors that supply files of records but do not sustain an accessible DB; records for local items, such as reserve materials)?