Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata



  • approve draft Holdings recommendation

Discussion items

Meeting next week? - July 5th
We will meet next week, July 5 at our usual time.
Subgroup Updates 
  • Batch Loading Group
    • Over 100 sources of incoming acquisitions and bibliographic data have been identified.
    • Filip started adding to the meetings, helping with how the information will flow through the system.
    • Now the group is talking about specific data points.
    • Scope: MARC bibliographic, MARC Edifact, MARC Holdings, and delimited files. As the group works through each format, they will talk about matching/match points. What parts of FOLIO does that incoming record affect? How is data parsed? What happens in FOLIO with this data?
  • MarcCat Subgroup
    • The group saw a demo of the search functionality of WeCat.
    • Tiziana will set up a test instance for the group to use.
    • The group will have regular meetings on Mondays.
Draft Holdings scope notes

There is a need and desire to manage holdings in MARC Format. Everyone sees a need to export holdings in MARC Format. The group would like to edit MARC Holdings in MARCcat. We would like to have a FOLIO MARC Holdings Storage, similar to the Bib Storage. These records need to be synchronized across stores. This should be optional.

Ann-Marie will need to add MARC Holdings to the scope of the Batch Loading Working Group. Is there a chance that libraries may want to use two types of holdings: FOLIO and MARC? The group generally thought both should be available at all times to all libraries. Michael from Germany, seconded this notion. Mary from Alabama commented that they use MARC Holdings for some materials at times, and do not use MARC Holdings for other types of materials. Lynn asked that we please comment on the document.

Product Council UpdateDracine Hodges


    • By default, the new Vice Chair of the Product Council will be Jesse Koennecke.
    • New member: University of Leipzig
    • Gap Analysis: Holly discussed the prioritization of features which were ranked by early adopters.
    • Ethics survey: Still being analyzed.
    • Concerns of inconsistent granularity of features.
    • High turnout at ALA for the FOLIO panel and reception.
    • At a German Library Day, attendance was high at a FOLIO session at over 500.
Gap Analysis


The Gap Analysis is for the Inventory Data Model. The goal was to find data that currently has a "home" in an institution's current ILS, and does not have a new home in FOLIO.

Gap tabs: Elements where gaps were discovered.

MARC Mapping: Is it time to start describing and capturing how all of the records will operate will each other. Will each institution be able to customize where their data "lives"? The mapping shown is not something to force a mapping, but only to identify where gaps are.

Where can we have common understandings?

  • Mapping group may need to reconvene, but it may be helpful to have a "default" mapping working group.
  • Charlotte said this mapping could use some updating since data points have evolved since this was first made, a year ago. Wayne Schneider may have the most up to date mapping available.
  • Sharon and Jason from Cornell expressed confusion in mapping to the Instance data, due to the lack of information about requirements. Christie talked about Chicago's concern about workflows relating to when to use which data store and when.
  • Christie - The data model will be customizable.
  • Sharon commented that it is hard to plan not knowing where the data will actually live.
  • Christie - This is less of a functional gap analysis then identifying places where current data has no place to map to.
  • Laura proposed separated out MARC data from administrative data in the chart. Jacquie - does administrative data include data included already in MARC? Christie - Think about what data do we need displayed in Inventory vs. where does it live in MARC?
  • Sharon - What do you mean where does it map to from MARC?
  • Separate mapping from modeling. Firming up the data model then deal with the data mapping. Sharon - clarification.
  • Jacquie - We need to determine minimum types of data in the Inventory 1) firm up base line inventory 2) look at what elements are missing, and if so, where will they go.
  • Is Inventory model useful? Has this gap analysis helped us with that question? - Jason
  • Charlotte - If we reconvene MARC Mapping group, look at Wayne's newer mappings, then look at data from an institution
  • Sharon - For July 1 deadline - Should Cornell say what they are missing?
  • Christie - Yes, the is worth completing. Next step - we will make decisions
  • Christie invited members to look at the spreadsheet and add to it.
  • Sharon - They have a Provider code buried in the MARC. What elements should be brought into the Inventory? Ann-Marie - the MARC record information will always be there underlying the Inventory, if it is linked to the MARC record.
  • Sharon - Purposes of each. Inventory is Discovery for internal users. Inventory for reporting? Ann-Marie - Inventory should have enough info to interact with each app. (i.e. circulation, acquisitions.....) For patrons, where is info coming from? (Sharon) Ann-Marie - How do things get to the external discovery if there is not a MARC record? Does not know the answer.
  • Jason - Inventory data model may have too much? What is the purpose? We need to push data into discovery at some point. Gaps may mostly occur in holdings and item. That is where we should focus our efforts.


Alice Krim

Ann-Marie Breaux
xCharlotte Whitt
xChristie Thomas

Damian Biagi

Dennis Christman

Dracine Hodges

Felix Hemme

Filip Jakobsen

Jacquie Samples

Jason Kovari

Jessica Janecki

Kimie Ou Yang
xLaura Wright

Lisa Furubotten
xLisa McColl

Lisa Sjögren
xLynn Whittenberger
xMary Alexander
xNatascha Owens

Niels Erik Nielsen

Patty Wanninger

Sarah Schmidt

Tiziana Possemato