Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Goals

  • Continue the discussion of different types "package" records and their relationships across FOLIO apps

Discussion items

ItemWhoNotes
Review main points from last week's discussion

Use cases in ERM, eHoldings, Inventory


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DakHW6D5_09uKJPQzCSTwycP0gqkPs6E7k35_KpfCxg/edit#heading=h.qoqu1vta1deq\

There are cases that demonstrate need for a "container" type of record in multiple apps.



We briefly reviewed notes the discussion we had last week, which ended with use cases.

-Some are clearly e-only and some are clearly print/tangible only; some might involve both print and electronic resources.

Most of the rest of our discussion came out of the following question:

Why do we want/need Package records in Inventory if they are already in ERM?

-attaching orders (V1 agreement was that orders from Acquisitions would link to a record in Inventory; Package records would be better than “dummy” instance records for, for example, a series standing order

-associating rich metadata records for individual titles (such as Instance records based on MARC records for e-books) with the package or packages they are part of

-German libraries have another example they will share of having to create duplicate records in ERM and in their local catalogs that Package records could help solve

Some Packages or package-like collections may not be in ERM (example: locally digitized special collections)

 

We identified some shared goals:

  • Prevent duplicative work
  • Allow for flexible implementation of FOLIO apps
  • Allow each apps development to continue without getting bogged down by other apps’ needs
  • Provide a hierarchical package container-like structure in any app that needs it
  • Maintain a clear “source of truth” for any cross-app information sharing

We seem to agree thus far:

  • Package records in ERM/eHoldings need elements that may not be needed by Package/Container records in Inventory
  • Package/Container records in Inventory don’t need to display all the information held in Package records from ERM/eHoldings
  • The idea of a single record type across multiple apps is ideal, but we don’t know if or how it is realizable
  • We should continue to develop Package/Container records within in each app while identifying some core common elements to insure future interoperability
  • Consider the MarcCat/FOLIO Inventory model for maintaining integrity of data by making sure it can only be altered at the “source of truth”
  • Local Package Records in Inventory probably need a different name

Next Steps:

-Khalilah will share eHoldings Package record elements with Laura & Charlotte

-Package subgroup of MM SIG will meet and come up with a revised proposal for the Inventory Local Package record (Container record?), keeping in mind the elements that it should share with ERM/eHoldings packages

-Kristin will summarize this discussion for RM SIG

-All relevant documents should be posted on the Local Package Group wiki page

-Laura will create a Discuss post around the work of the Local Package subgroup – if any issues cannot be resolved via that platform, or new concerns arise, we will meet again, possibly using a regular RM meeting time

Does Inventory need to know about packages in other apps?
We think yes, but does not need to display all the info from those Package records.
Define elements relevant for the local package entity - can this type of record be used across apps?
Maybe only some core elements need to be the same in all?
Current thinking is that a new Order will create a brief Inventory Instance, if it doesn't already exist. Would the Order need to be able to understand to create an Inventory Package record instead, for some new Orders? (A-M)
Still needs clarification. If the package does not originate in ERM, yes? If it is in ERM, can the package info be displayed in Inventory without having to create an entirely new record?
Will the Batch Loader need to be able to CRUD Inventory Package records (in addition to Inventory Instance, Holding, and Item records)? (A-M)
Not yet discussed. Is this in scope for V1? or should this be put in the MM Parking Lot? (Laura's question)













Action items

  • -Khalilah will share eHoldings Package record elements with Laura & Charlotte

    -Package subgroup of MM SIG will meet and come up with a revised proposal for the Inventory Local Package record (Container record?), keeping in mind the elements that it should share with ERM/eHoldings packages

    -Kristin will summarize this discussion for RM SIG

    -All relevant documents should be posted on the Local Package Group wiki page

    -Laura will create a Discuss post around the work of the Local Package subgroup – if any issues cannot be resolved via that platform, or new concerns arise, we will meet again, possibly using a regular RM meeting time