2018-01-18 Metadata Management Meeting Notes

• Feedback on the sprint reviews should be given either to Dracine or to the product owners.
• The Product Council has been talking about testing. Testing is being done mostly at EBSCO at the moment. They may decide at the Madrid meeting to have a dedicated tester.
• They also discussed a regeneration of the Privacy SIG and Sys Ops and Management SIG. They have identified a convener for the Privacy SIG.
• In May there will probably be a gathering of those interested in FOLIO.
• The Linked Data group will be a working group of the MM SIG. Linked data is a topic on the agenda at Madrid. This may help give the group a purpose or direction.

• Resource/Format working group (joint MM and RA SIG working group) - wiki page
• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LYQK0ZMusiMrUoD_-OR8cyvAhw5HtQILxKKmX7dGOl8/edit#gid=2061830390 - Google sheet
• Lynn will send out a Doodle poll for meeting dates/times next week - aiming to have first working group meeting the week of Jan 29th
• Some people from the Resource Management SIG will join the working group.
• The first meeting may be the end of January, or start of Feb.
• There was short discussion of what the role of 33X fields in formatting will be. They will be considered, but as a member pointed out, we do have to consider legacy data since many libraries do not have a workflow or process to upgrade exisiting records. If anyone has mappings to offer, even if they cannot join the working group, please feel free to share that.
• In chat from Lisa @TAMU - "

  Back burner: while you are considering this, 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."

• share the time between Inventory, Codex Search AND the Cataloguing app. And how we plan to have several small working groups in parallel, in order to be able to work on several areas at the same time.
• We'll meet with AtCult in early Feb(?) to discuss the microservices to include in an initial editing/cataloging workflow
• We'll meet with Sebastian H. sometime in Feb to discuss the data model for transferring data between the record warehouse(s) / catalog editor / inventory / codex
• Lynn said that as AtCult's development moves, they will ask for feedback from this group.
• After Madrid, Philip will come back to our group with some UX work on inventory.
• Charlotte stated that AtCult's starting point is typically written workflows, which is different than the approach we have been taking with FOLIO. Cate said they will try to merge both approaches so we can continue to think about the UX as we work.

There will be a breakout discussion session at the Madrid developers meeting: "Cataloguing by reference: Authority data control and Linked data - - discuss if authority control is a step on the path to linked data"; what questions/ideas/thoughts need to be brought forward for discussion?

• Jason Kovari asked what the context is in which this will be discussed in the Madrid meeting. How do you want us to focus?
• Charlotte - This is a visionary discussion. Example: How do we look up authority data? Can we rethink authority in the context of linked data.
• Jason - There is an effort at Cornell, as part of LD4L, to make lookups across a broad set of datasets possible.
• Ann-Marie - If libraries have authority records in their local systems right now, how will that be supported within FOLIO? How will that inform the display cross references in inventory or Codex?
• Wayne Schneider - This is more along the lines of the Madrid conversation. Designing FOLIO with linked data in mind. AtCult has authority control built in. How do we want that workflow to be in FOLIO? This will be part of the discussion.
• Charlotte is going to frame some questions that she will share with this group for feedback.
• Goal is to rely on a URI for updating, but to maintain a text string. Linked data services are not reliable enough to count on for populating our records.
• Christie Thomas - What is the place in FOLIO to store the identifiers, or storing authority control? Charlotte - As Charlotte sees it - it will be in the inventory app, as well as the cataloging app.
• Charlotte - Sebastian Hammer is working on a white paper that should address the flow between the cataloging module and the inventory. Charlotte is hoping he can present that paper to this SIG in February.
• Felix - There is no separate storage for Codex records? Charlotte - Inventory app stores the instance data, holdings data, and item records. Lynn - there is no warehouse of Codex records. They do not exist in FOLIO. Jacquie - the Codex is merely a display, a subset of elements. Ann-Marie - If the Codex is bringing together data from different metadata types - the Codex will bring common data elements together for search purposes. Jacquie thinks of it as a unified index. Lynn - This means we will have an authority control question in the Codex.
• Charlotte will add framing questions here. Members should feel free to give Charlotte feedback on these questions to ensure a focused discussion that has an output.
  

Suggested framing questions (1/18/18) - draft

1. What does authorized data (uniform titles, names, subjects, etc.) look like in FOLIO? Can we imagine a design for authority control that keeps linked data in mind?

2. Do we have the necessary ’building blocks’ for making an Authority Control solution, in a reasonable manner and time (knowing that Authority Control is not V1, but something sought after by catalogers, and something which is build into @Cults Cataloguing module).

3. How can we make the Authority Control functionality accessible for catalogers regardless of cataloguing is done in the Inventory app (storage), in the MARC cataloguing app (editor from @Cult), or entering a brief record in the Acquisition app.

4. How do we maintain authority control data within FOLIO?

5. Next steps and assignees