Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


A space to record issues/ideas that the MM SIG should examine, but that need to be tabled from the current conversation.

We'll try to save a minute or two at the end of each MM SIG meeting to review issues in the parking lot & see if they should be brought to the next meeting.

If you add a topic, please include your name and the date added.


  1. a) 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 UXPROD-139 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    b)
    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 UXPROD-151 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  2. authority control: how does this fit with FOLIO, with the codex, discovery, local inventory (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017)
    1. For the controlled lists being populated and managed in Inventory (e.g.:resource/format types): these will need to be considered for moving into the Authority Control/Management application (Jason, 2018.08.23)  UXPROD-787 - Getting issue details... STATUS   UXPROD-1009 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  3. a) metadata for non-textual formats, to ensure FOLIO is taking their needs into account enough. (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017). Inventory Beta Metadata Elements: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RCZyXUA5rK47wZqfFPbiRM0xnw8WnMCcmlttT7B3VlI/edit#gid=952741439 
    b) Need music cataloging
    review of Inventory, MarCat, etc. (Laura W, Oct. 15, 2018)

  4. a) referential cataloging: what would this mean for discovery? for local edits to cataloging records? for vendor-supplied cataloging or shelfready services? We need to talk through these types of issues, but maybe not until after v1. (Ann-Marie: 21 Sept 2017) Nov. 15, 2018 update: wait until post Chalmers
    b) Discovery comes from where? Inventory? Other apps? What is role of MarcCat? For example, do we need the ability to mark a record as suppressed from public display in MarcCat? (Laura W., Sept 12, 2018) Update, Oct. 15: discovery should be coming, initially, from the Marc Storage "blob." Oct 15: Question for Laura from A-M. Just saw this note. The MARC storage is just MARC data, so it seems like we still have a question of whether there is a way to indicate a record should not be pushed out for discovery - in Inventory? in MARCcat? Seems like Inventory would be the place for it since MARCcat doesn't necessarily know about all the instances in Inventory. Then when whatever service goes to harvest the MARC data for pushing out to Discovery, it maybe 1) starts with Inventory to know what it should be trying to push out to discovery, 2) then grabs MARC storage data for anything that it's supposed to, 3) creates MARC on the fly (but does not store) from the Inventory record for anything that is supposed to go to discovery that does not have underlying MARC. Would be great to discuss at an upcoming MM SIG meeting.  UXPROD-993 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  5. 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)


  6. loan type: Do we need the element loan type in the Codex' item metadata in order to borrow books? (Felix: 26 Oct 2017) --update Nov 2nd: the element is now listed in the MARC mapping spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kdYx63J0KoqR3-LUHuPAzERgj8WE0OQ08rzuCaJaHWs/edit#gid=901484405

  7. Split view of records in FOLIO apps: would be very helpful in future versions to be able to view two different instance records (plus summaries of related holdings and items) at the same time. Some cases where we might want this include serials with title changes (we may also want to move items/holdings between records and edit holdings), holdings/items attached to incorrect record (also would be nice to be able to move from one to the other). Other use cases? (Laura W., 21 Nov 2017)

  8. Back burner: 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)

  9. Synching holdings and item data with bibliographic data: Some note elements that have been defined for holdings and items (e.g., action note, ownership and custodial history) have historically been maintained in 5xx fields in the bibliographic record. How will the data be managed when it is required at both the bibliographic (5xx entries) and holdings / item level (Inventory data elements)? (Christie, Chicago, July 12, 2018)  UIIN-235 - Getting issue details... STATUS  and  UIIN-253 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  10. 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) UXPROD-1635 - Getting issue details... STATUS  and  UXPROD-1625 - Getting issue details... STATUS

  11. MARCcat issues
    (Laura W, Sept. 4, 2018)

    1. diacritics in searching – search/browse functions need to work both with and without diacritics entered
    2. keyboard commands vs mousing & accessibility

  12. Default mapping of MARC to Inventory Records: "I don't want to take us back to the previous discussion and derail this one, but I'm curious about expected behavior for changing the default mapping for MARC records to inventory records. When we change, do we expect that all of the existing records in inventory would be retroactively updated from the MARC store? What would that do to system performance while it's happening? It might be a non-issue for the developers, I just wanted to bring it up so we can make sure it gets thought through." - Dennis (posted in MM SIG meeting chat on 2/7/2019) 

  13. Multiple (aka Alternate) Graphical Representations  FOLIO-wide issues around the display of non-Roman character sets is present.  There should be a way to make sure that all Unicode values are validate-able including those stored in the MARCcat or Source data stores.  The ability to validate Unicode values in current systems does not exist, so doing so would be an improvement of the current state.  UXPROD-1646 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    Draft proposal
  14. Transferring holdings and items: Transferring holdings and items should retain any relationships established via app integrations, e.g., orders, etc. 
  15. UXPROD-1647 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  16. MARC exports: What data needs to be accommodated in a MARC export? Use cases include only full bibliographic description with a MARC srs record; MARC srs records + folio inventory instance data (when a MARC srs is not present); MARC holdings; FOLIO holdings and item mapped to local data fields; etc.
  17. 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)
  18. Default inventory data for display in search results list. Related to UXPROD-1634. New story required to request ability to configure which inventory are displayed in the results list. (Christie Thomas, UChicago, 7/8/2019)
  19. Acquisitions data display in Holdings/Items (UXPROD-1607) – revisit
  20. Receiving data in Holdings? In Receiving app? (UXPROD-1608)
  21. OCLC integration – that is, the ability to export a single directly from OCLC into FOLIO;  UChicago, Cornell, and possibly others are working with Index Data on a solution.
  22. Relinking/transferring item records



  • No labels